Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 907
From: Digest <deadmail>
To: "OS/2GenAu Digest"<deadmail>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 00:01:08 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600

**************************************************
Friday 06 August 2004
 Number  907
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1   Win 16 : Chris_neeson <Chris_Neeson at compuserve dot com>
2   Graham Utilities - Wishlist : Chris_neeson <Chris_Neeson at compuserve dot com>
3  Re:  Graham Utilities - Wishlist : Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
4  Re:  Win 16 : Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
5  Re:  Graham Utilities - Wishlist : Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
6  Re:  Graham Utilities - Wishlist : Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
7  Re:  Chkdsk & SCSI : Peter L Allen" <allenpl at netspace dot net dot au>
8  Re:  Graham Utilities - Wishlist : Dennis Nolan <dennik at swiftdsl dot com dot au>
9   Calendar in Firefox : Dennis Nolan <dennik at swiftdsl dot com dot au>
10  Re:  Calendar in Firefox : Ian Manners" <deadmail>
11  Re:  Calendar in Firefox : John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
12  Re:  Calendar in Firefox : David Forrester" <davidfor at internode.on dot net>

**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:28:56 -0400
From:  Chris_neeson <Chris_Neeson at compuserve dot com>
Subject:   Win 16

I'd just like to add my email to the keep-Win16 emulation vote.

It means I can run my Win 16 in OS2, or from a DOS/Win16 boot,
and the data looks the same regardless of which OS I boot,
and it looks the same as when it was made 10 years ago.

As well as Word for Win that Chris Graham mentioned,
my fax software happens to be Win16
( yep, it's primitive - but I've only got one set of faxlog archives
  to keep track of, and that's complicated enough ).

Another advantage of Win16 support in OS2 is that you get the
advantages of OS2's memory management around your old sw
( which simply wasn't available for DOS/Win3.1x ).

Another is Y2K support at the filelevel
( for any file mismanagement the Win16 sw is doing ).

Regards
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:09:31 -0400
From:  Chris_neeson <Chris_Neeson at compuserve dot com>
Subject:   Graham Utilities - Wishlist

Chris of Warpspeed was asking whether we'd like
a new version of the Graham Utiltiies.

Well, I'd certainly like the package kept current.

I'd also like:

1. a cluster/sector/file allocation report

2. partition table recovery extended to LVM & JFS
   ( separately & jointly )

3. a partition/volume move/copy utiltiy

4 I'd like resurrection of Stacker, with extension of support
   for Linux's ext2/3.

Regards
Chris

In more detail ( verbiage )

1. Cluster/Sector/file Allocation Report

  I want to know, and be able to keep periodic reports of,
  which files are allocated to which clusters/sectors
  or whatever the allocation unit is for a file system type
  ( not just the starting cluster/sector and number of them,
    but the complete sequence of those allocated to each file )

  This report could also be given by cluster/sector

  It would be nice if such a utility also worked on
  compressed 'volumes'.

  I want a utility like this so that if I get a Bad Sector in a file,
  I can check a file/cluster allocation report and nut out which
  backup to restore that file from
  ( if I'm lucky I'll be able hexedit the clobbered part from the
    restored version into the latest version ).

2. partition table backup/recovery extended to LVM & JFS

  Well, if we have those features, we should be able to recover them.

  Given the volume spanning ability of LVM,
  programming this should be interesting.

  And I don't care how indestructible JFS might seem to be,
  if we depend on it, we should be able to recover the 'system'
  part of it.

3. a partition/volume move/copy utiltiy

  Yeah, PowerQuest used to do this, but now they don't do it
  for enough OSes, especially OS2.

  We need one that works on all filesystems we have
  ( including Unix/Linux ).

  How about one that has an ability to interrogate unknown files system
  structures, if there's an identifiable IFS for that partition/volume?

4 I'd like resurrection of Stacker, with extension of support
   to JFS & Linux's ext2/3.

   ( not sure if this belongs in a utility package, but anyway... )

   The beauty of Stacker for DOS & OS/2 was that you could access
   your compressed 'drives' from whichever OS you booted
   ( ESSENTIAL! - having access to data dependent on your OS
     is simply unacceptable )
   AND it used nearly all available space within its 'drive' file,
   because the cluster allcoation requirement was already applied
   to Stacker's file which was remapped to a drive.

   As I understand bits of the doco for my version 4.1,
   you COULD even compress HPFS drives
   ( well, maybe - haven't tried it yet ).

   It certainly knew about long filenames for Win95.

   I personally still need to save disk space,
   and the idea of MS's Doublewhatever being the ONLY disk compression
   software on the market is irritating.

   Something Stacker seems to need is  bigger possible 'volume' size
   - I don't seem to be able to make them bigger than 256M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   3 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 6 Aug 2004 07:43:53 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Graham Utilities - Wishlist

Chris_neeson said:

> 4 I'd like resurrection of Stacker, with extension of support
>    to JFS & Linux's ext2/3.
>
>    ( not sure if this belongs in a utility package, but anyway... )
>
>    The beauty of Stacker for DOS & OS/2 was that you could access
>    your compressed 'drives' from whichever OS you booted
>    ( ESSENTIAL! - having access to data dependent on your OS
>      is simply unacceptable )

how do you access HPFS from windoze ?

>    AND it used nearly all available space within its 'drive' file,
>    because the cluster allcoation requirement was already applied
>    to Stacker's file which was remapped to a drive.
>    As I understand bits of the doco for my version 4.1,
>    you COULD even compress HPFS drives
>    ( well, maybe - haven't tried it yet ).
>    It certainly knew about long filenames for Win95.

does win95 has long filename ...?
i thought it had a kludged file names....

>     I personally still need to save disk space,
>    and the idea of MS's Doublewhatever being the ONLY disk compression
>    software on the market is irritating.
>    Something Stacker seems to need is  bigger possible 'volume' size
>    - I don't seem to be able to make them bigger than 256M.

I always thought Stacker was a badly flawed idea, having **all** of your
files inside a single container file.... very dangerous

Chris, what's your opinion on above ?

as for compression etc, have a look at Mick Garay's Carbon Based ZipStream
Secure (I think that's the name...), that's compression done right, IMHO

each file individuallly com and un-comp, and, encruypted/decrypted, on the
fly, realtime

damage a single file means you damaged a single file, not more, all files
always available in compressed/encypted format, regardless

-- 
Voytek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   4 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 6 Aug 2004 07:49:47 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Win 16

Chris_neeson said:

> Another advantage of Win16 support in OS2 is that you get the
> advantages of OS2's memory management around your old sw
> ( which simply wasn't available for DOS/Win3.1x ).

there were a variety of third party memory management utilities, which
perhaps gave more control than using OS/2 mem management. DOS only
accessing 640MB is kinda of a moot point these days

-- 
Voytek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   5 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:29:49 +1000
From:  Mike O'Connor <mikeoc at dodo dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Graham Utilities - Wishlist

Voytek Eymont wrote:

>Chris_neeson said:
>
>>4 I'd like resurrection of Stacker, with extension of support
>>   to JFS & Linux's ext2/3.
>>
>>   The beauty of Stacker for DOS & OS/2 was that you could access
>>   your compressed 'drives' from whichever OS you booted
>>   ( ESSENTIAL! - having access to data dependent on your OS
>>     is simply unacceptable )
>>    
>>
>how do you access HPFS from windoze ?
>

Hi Voytek,

You don't  - running Stacker for OS/2 & DOS, meant that you *had* to 
have OS/2 installed on a FAT16 drive!
Hence visible from a DOS boot.

-- 
Regards,
Mike

Failed the exam for
--------------------
MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
--------------------
[ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
[Please use zipped versions of above]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   6 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 6 Aug 2004 09:02:49 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Graham Utilities - Wishlist

Mike O'Connor said:
> Voytek Eymont wrote:
>
>>Chris_neeson said:
>>
>>>   The beauty of Stacker for DOS & OS/2 was that you could access
>>>   your compressed 'drives' from whichever OS you booted
>>>   ( ESSENTIAL! - having access to data dependent on your OS
>>>     is simply unacceptable )
>>>
>>>
>>how do you access HPFS from windoze ?
>>
>
> Hi Voytek,
>
> You don't  - running Stacker for OS/2 & DOS, meant that you *had* to
> have OS/2 installed on a FAT16 drive!
> Hence visible from a DOS boot.

thanks , Mike

Chris, being dependant and relaying on FAT volume for your data is simply...

well, I better stop here

-- 
Voytek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   7 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:29:36 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Peter L Allen" <allenpl at netspace dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Chkdsk & SCSI

Duh! yeah 256M!
Have been checking the SH market and will probably go there for a start,
				Regards,
						allenpl

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:45:02 +1000 (AEST), John Angelico wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:23:04 +1000 (EST), Peter L Allen wrote:
>
>>John,
>>	Pretty quick off the mark there!
>>Probably due to a more conservative lifestyle I'm still calling Aus home!
>>And yes it has been mentioned more than once - only by old geezers tho <g>
>
>Guilty as charged, your honour! My geezer has passed 50 already - along with
>the rest of me<g>
>
>>
>>The Chkdsk bit arises from playing around and being told that there wasn't enough 
>>memory to process a large partition - this box has 256K. Was able to chkdsk a 4G 
>>partition but haven't experimented further as yet.
>
>Ah! 256 K not M right? I would think - ruefully and nostalgically - 256K is a
>bit short for RAM these days. How on earth do you get Warp 4 FP12 to actually
>run?
>
>>
>>Tekram - value - cables and terminators are included - claim OS2 support.
>>Seen good reports from Doze users and some years back success with OS2.
>
>Fair enough - can't argue with good value for money, except for the doze
>comments - sometimes they don't translate across to OS/2.
>
>>Any one out there running a fairly recent one?
>
>Not here, sorry. I have been using BusLogic (fairly cheap) with a special
>80pin cable (cost more than the card<g>) to fit the SCSI HDD I bought at a
>real bargain price. Overall I was still more than $50 ahead of a "standard"
>SCSI HDD plus card and cable setup.
>
>Then I bought a little Adaptec card for the scanner I have acquired.
>
>So my cards have been "bog-standard", supported by OS/2 for a long time, even
>though I have gone into new areas - high-grade HDD and a scanner.
>
>Best regards
>John Angelico
>OS/2 SIG
>os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or 
>talldad at kepl dot com dot au
>___________________
>
>PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
>... Fax me no questions and I'll telix you no fibs.
>
>

> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   8 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:42:11 +1000
From:  Dennis Nolan <dennik at swiftdsl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Graham Utilities - Wishlist

Chris_neeson wrote:

>Chris of Warpspeed was asking whether we'd like
>a new version of the Graham Utiltiies.
>
>  
>
If it doesn't already do it, support for inspecting USB MSD file 
allocation structures is going to become increasingly important.

I just bought an Olympus USB XD Picture card adapter.

It only does XD Picture cards, but then again, they're the only cards 
that I use.

The allows me to plug my XD Picture cards directly into the USB port.

I understand that these cards have a limited lifetime and that they will 
begin to lose random memory cells as they die.

A utility to test and verrify these MSDs is going to be needed.

Regards

Dennis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   9 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:14:59 +1000
From:  Dennis Nolan <dennik at swiftdsl dot com dot au>
Subject:   Calendar in Firefox

Hi all

Has anybody got this to work in OS/2 yet.

I tried and only got an error message.

Thought I would check if it is something not setup correctly here first.

Regards

Dennis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   10 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 06 Aug 2004 22:58:22 +1000 (EST)
From:  "Ian Manners" <deadmail>
Subject:  Re:  Calendar in Firefox

Hi Dennis

> Has anybody got this to work in OS/2 yet.

Works well with Mozilla, havent tried it in firefox

Cheers
Ian Manners
http://www.os2site dot com/

WINERR 017 - MULTITASKING ATTEMPTED; SYSTEM CONFUSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   11 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 06 Aug 2004 23:13:11 +1000 (AEST)
From:  "John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Calendar in Firefox

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 22:58:22 +1000 (EST), Ian Manners wrote:

Hi Dennis and Ian.

>Hi Dennis
>
>> Has anybody got this to work in OS/2 yet.
>
>Works well with Mozilla, havent tried it in firefox
>
>
>Cheers
>Ian Manners
>http://www.os2site dot com/

It would appear from 
http://www.mozilla dot org/projects/calendar/download.html

that there is no OS/2 version for Firefox as yet.

Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or 
talldad at kepl dot com dot au
___________________

PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
.... "Time is an illusion; lunch-time doubly so!" Ford Prefect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   12 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 06 Aug 2004 23:28:47 +1000 (EST)
From:  "David Forrester" <davidfor at internode.on dot net>
Subject:  Re:  Calendar in Firefox

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:14:59 +1000, Dennis Nolan wrote:

>Hi all
>
>Has anybody got this to work in OS/2 yet.
>
>I tried and only got an error message.
>
>Thought I would check if it is something not setup correctly here first.

I was looking at this today (I really didn't want to do any work).  I
couldn't get it to work either.  I hit two problems:

- There isn't a version of the Calendar extension for Firefox 0.9 under
OS/2

- The two versions of the extension for Mozilla suite aren't packaged
correctly for Firefox, and 

I tried a few of things:

- Installed the version from Peter Weilbacher's site.  The installation
was OK, but, when I tried it, it there was a massive error message
pointing to a bug 134432 on bugzilla.

- As the profile I use is shared between OS/2 and Win2000, I installed
the windows version under Windows.  Then I replaced the xpical.dll file
with the OS/2 version from the above.  Unfortunately, this had the same
result.  This did at least partly work, as I was able to get to the
Calender preferences dialog from the Extension Manager.

- Pulled the Windows extension apart, and replaced the DLL, and then
installed this into OS/2.  Same result as both of the above.

I think what is needed is a new build of xpical.dll for Firefox.  I
think the rest of it is OK, as when I compared the Windows and Linux
files, the only differences I could find where the DLL and the icon
used.  So, getting a new version of this should be all that is needed. 
But, there'll might be something I've missed.

A request on the Mozilla newsgroup is probably the way to go now.

--
David Forrester
davidfor at internode.on dot net
http://www.os2world dot com/djfos2/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------