🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <59lcnr$lf5@mippet.ci.com.au>, Antonio Lam <laman@accsoft.com.au> writes:
|> In Australia, one of the leading PC magazine, PC User, comparing Win95, 
|> WinNT and OS/2 Warp in the Operation System Section of the Vol 9 Number 
|> 1 January 1997 issue, says:
|> 
|> "Both OS/2 and NT directly support RAID (redundant array of inexpensive 
|> drives) for reliable sky's-the-limit storage, while Windows 95 doesn't.  
|> On the other hand, OS/2 Warp needs help to handle IDE disks larger than 
|> 512kb."
|> 
|> That is ridiculous, 512kb is smaller than space available on the floppy 
|> disk.  I think he is talking about the 512MB BIOS limitation.  Could 
|> someone knowledgable write to the editor on "pcuser@apc.com.au" and 
|> explain to the author what 512MB limit is.

They probably meant 512MB (I don't know if they support it or not),
I have a SCSI 2GB drive installed (but partitioned) with no problems

 -Mike

In article <59lcnr$lf5@mippet.ci.com.au> Antonio Lam <laman@accsoft.com.au> writes:

>In Australia, one of the leading PC magazine, PC User, comparing Win95, 
>WinNT and OS/2 Warp in the Operation System Section of the Vol 9 Number 
>1 January 1997 issue, says:

>"Both OS/2 and NT directly support RAID (redundant array of inexpensive 
>drives) for reliable sky's-the-limit storage, while Windows 95 doesn't.  
>On the other hand, OS/2 Warp needs help to handle IDE disks larger than 
>512kb."

>That is ridiculous, 512kb is smaller than space available on the floppy 
>disk.  I think he is talking about the 512MB BIOS limitation.  Could 
>someone knowledgable write to the editor on "pcuser@apc.com.au" and 
>explain to the author what 512MB limit is.

Rubbish as you rightly say. I have just installed a second drive (850 MB) on 
an old system. The BIOS and DOS can't see over 512MB but OS/2 has no trouble.

Note that is in any case necessary to have DOS/FAT partitions at the beginning 
of the disk as DOS can't see the HPFS partitions.

Pearson

Pearson Cresswell wrote:
> Note that is in any case necessary to have DOS/FAT partitions at the beginning
> of the disk as DOS can't see the HPFS partitions.
Not if you're using a recent version of DOS - it will then ignore the
HPFS drive, and
access any other FAT Drives after it - which introduces drive/file
naming hassles,
but it does work.

-- 
dIon <Multitask Consulting - Bringing OS/2 to U>
NetRexx FAQ: http://www.multitask.com.au/netrexxfaq.htm
NetRexx FAC: http://www.multitask.com.au/netrexx/fac
NetRexx API: http://www.multitask.com.au/netrexx/api

In <59lcnr$lf5@mippet.ci.com.au>, Antonio Lam <laman@accsoft.com.au> writes:
>In Australia, one of the leading PC magazine, PC User, comparing Win95, 
>WinNT and OS/2 Warp in the Operation System Section of the Vol 9 Number 
>1 January 1997 issue, says:
>
>"Both OS/2 and NT directly support RAID (redundant array of inexpensive 
>drives) for reliable sky's-the-limit storage, while Windows 95 doesn't.  
>On the other hand, OS/2 Warp needs help to handle IDE disks larger than 
>512kb."
>
>That is ridiculous, 512kb is smaller than space available on the floppy 
>disk.  I think he is talking about the 512MB BIOS limitation.  Could 
>someone knowledgable write to the editor on "pcuser@apc.com.au" and 
>explain to the author what 512MB limit is.

Here we go again: while 512 MB is a nice round number, it has nothing to do
with what they are (probably) talking about, which is the 1024-cylinder 
limitation in many BIOSes INT15H hardware reporting. These guys should just
keep their mouths shit when they don't know what they're talking about - 
but then there wouldn't be any PC magazines, would there? In any case, the 
damage is done, and they're not going to make themselves look stupid by 
publishing a correction - most likely on the grounds that nobody cares, 
since OS/2 is dead.

Best,

--- Les

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Les Bell   lesbell@ibm.net       Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 |
| http://www.lesbell.com.au        Fax: +61 2 9451 1122 |
| Les Bell and Associates Pty Ltd  PO Box 297           |
| OS/2 Training and Consulting     Neutral Bay NSW 2089 |
|                                  Australia            |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

In message <59lcnr$lf5@mippet.ci.com.au> - Antonio Lam
<laman@accsoft.com.au>23 Dec 1996 07:35:23 GMT writes:
> 
> In Australia, one of the leading PC magazine, PC User, comparing
> Win95, WinNT and OS/2 Warp in the Operation System Section of the Vol
> 9 Number 1 January 1997 issue, says:
> 
> "Both OS/2 and NT directly support RAID (redundant array of
> inexpensive drives) for reliable sky's-the-limit storage, while
> Windows 95 doesn't.  On the other hand, OS/2 Warp needs help to handle
> IDE disks larger than 512kb."
> 
> That is ridiculous, 512kb is smaller than space available on the
> floppy disk.  I think he is talking about the 512MB BIOS limitation. 
> Could someone knowledgable write to the editor on "pcuser@apc.com.au"
> and explain to the author what 512MB limit is.

First, there is no 512MB limit in hard drives.

Second, you and the writers at PC User are probably thinking of the
1024-cylinder limit.  On old IDE systems, this works out to 504MB
(defining "MB" as 1,048,576 bytes, as is done by most software; when
"MB" is defined as 1,000,000 bytes, as hard drive manufacturers do,
the 1024-cylinder limit comes to ~520MB on older IDE systems).

Third, the 1024-cylinder limit comes to other values on other
hardware.  [In theory, it COULD come to 512MB with appropriate
settings, but I've never heard of this in practice.]  On modern
hardware, it works out to variable sizes depending on the hard disks
and hardware and/or software settings.  It's usually not even an issue
these days, in fact.  AFAIK, the next point where this will become an
issue with modern EIDE controllers and SCSI host adapters is at 8GB.

Fourth, OS/2 has long been able to handle drives that have more than
1024 cylinders (as reported by the BIOS).  Like *ALL* OSes, it can't
boot from above the 1024-cylinder mark, but OS/2 has been able to
natively use that space since at least version 2.1, probably earlier. 
At that time, DOS users were struggling to overcome the limit, but
OS/2 did it out of the box.  Amazing how the press can twist the
truth.

Fifth, the way OS/2 handles the limit on drives where it exists is to
ignore it; the limit is imposed by the BIOS, and OS/2 doesn't use the
BIOS for hard disk access (usually; at boot time it does, and it will
if you use the IBMINT13.I13 driver, which isn't the default for most
setups).  Therefore OS/2 just ignores the limit, at least when using
HPFS partitions.  DOS, OTOH, uses INT13, and so to get around the
limit it uses special drivers to re-map the drive geometry, which is
what modern EIDE and SCSI sytems do at a lower level.  This re-mapping
is incompatible with OS/2's method of getting around the limit,
however, hence the "OS/2 needs help" claims, since it's then necessary
to get OS/2 to recognize the DOS kludge if both OSes are to use the
same disk.

Sixth, OS/2 has been able to recognize these DOS kludges for some
time, since one of the earlier FixPacks for OS/2 3.0.  This support is
built into Warp 4.0.

Seventh, I've written a mini-FAQ on the subject, available at:

  http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~rodsmith/large-drives.html

It includes a link to a site with yet more detailed information, but
less OS/2-specific information.

If you want to forward this message to the magazine, fine; but as I've
not read the original article, I don't want to reply directly.

> laman@accsoft.com.au

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rod Smith                                 Author of:               |
| rodsmith@indiana.edu                      "Should I Buy OS/2" FAQ  |
| http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~rodsmith   "OS/2 Soundcard Summary" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Les Bell wrote:
> 
> keep their mouths shit when they don't know what they're talking about -
> but then there wouldn't be any PC magazines, would there? In any case, the
> damage is done, and they're not going to make themselves look stupid by
> publishing a correction - most likely on the grounds that nobody cares,
> since OS/2 is dead.
Their mouths are already....

-- 
dIon <Multitask Consulting - Bringing OS/2 to U>
NetRexx FAQ: http://www.multitask.com.au/netrexxfaq.htm
NetRexx FAC: http://www.multitask.com.au/netrexx/fac
NetRexx API: http://www.multitask.com.au/netrexx/api

In <32BFF258.2E52@multitask.com.au>, dIon Gillard <dion@multitask.com.au> writes:
>Les Bell wrote:
>> 
>> keep their mouths shit when they don't know what they're talking about -
>> but then there wouldn't be any PC magazines, would there? In any case, the
>> damage is done, and they're not going to make themselves look stupid by
>> publishing a correction - most likely on the grounds that nobody cares,
>> since OS/2 is dead.
>Their mouths are already....

Oops - Freudian slip, there. Looks like my fingers just want to tell the 
whole truth, while the brain is trying to throttle them back<g>.

Best,

--- Les

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Les Bell   lesbell@ibm.net       Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 |
| http://www.lesbell.com.au        Fax: +61 2 9451 1122 |
| Les Bell and Associates Pty Ltd  PO Box 297           |
| OS/2 Training and Consulting     Neutral Bay NSW 2089 |
|                                  Australia            |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

In article <32BF93E0.2229@multitask.com.au>,
dIon Gillard <dion@multitask.com.au> wrote:
>Pearson Cresswell wrote:
>> Note that is in any case necessary to have DOS/FAT partitions at the beginning
>> of the disk as DOS can't see the HPFS partitions.
>Not if you're using a recent version of DOS - it will then ignore the
>HPFS drive, and
>access any other FAT Drives after it - which introduces drive/file
>naming hassles,
>but it does work.


How recent a version of Dos ?



My cd44-y70 Aptiva 486dx-50mhz [S/N: 9008794]  came with 270mb 
hard drive which I soon filled.  When I soon sort another HD installed, 
was looking for *Gb, however heard there was a limit to the 531,024 HD 
it says is there now.


Does this limit actually exist for my pc, or, was it yet another of lifes 
examples that left hand does not always know what right does :-(



As looking to soon install another HD - if cannot $ another pc, I look 
forward to this and any related information with interest.



regards,  Paul.

In <5lowycBTKgzM089yn@ibm.net>, parker0@ibm.net (Paul Parker) writes:
>How recent a version of Dos ?

DOS 4.01 and later will skip past HPFS logical drives.

>My cd44-y70 Aptiva 486dx-50mhz [S/N: 9008794]  came with 270mb 
>hard drive which I soon filled.  When I soon sort another HD installed, 
>was looking for *Gb, however heard there was a limit to the 531,024 HD 
>it says is there now.
>
>
>Does this limit actually exist for my pc, or, was it yet another of lifes 
>examples that left hand does not always know what right does :-(

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but take it from me: at the very
least, you can install a small logical drive in the first 1024 cylinders to
boot from, and then format the rest as a single HPFS drive.

Best,

--- Les

+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Les Bell   lesbell@ibm.net       Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 |
| http://www.lesbell.com.au        Fax: +61 2 9451 1122 |
| Les Bell and Associates Pty Ltd  PO Box 297           |
| OS/2 Training and Consulting     Neutral Bay NSW 2089 |
|                                  Australia            |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

In <5lowycBTKgzM089yn@ibm.net>, parker0@ibm.net (Paul Parker) writes:
>In article <32BF93E0.2229@multitask.com.au>,
>dIon Gillard <dion@multitask.com.au> wrote:
>>Pearson Cresswell wrote:
>>> Note that is in any case necessary to have DOS/FAT partitions at the beginning
>>> of the disk as DOS can't see the HPFS partitions.
>>Not if you're using a recent version of DOS - it will then ignore the
>>HPFS drive, and
>>access any other FAT Drives after it - which introduces drive/file
>>naming hassles,
>>but it does work.
>
>
>How recent a version of Dos ?
>
>
>
>My cd44-y70 Aptiva 486dx-50mhz [S/N: 9008794]  came with 270mb 
>hard drive which I soon filled.  When I soon sort another HD installed, 
>was looking for *Gb, however heard there was a limit to the 531,024 HD 
>it says is there now.
>
>
>Does this limit actually exist for my pc, or, was it yet another of lifes 
>examples that left hand does not always know what right does :-(
>
>
>
>As looking to soon install another HD - if cannot $ another pc, I look 
>forward to this and any related information with interest.
>

From what I've read the "unseeable" drives will also get remapped by the
controlling OS so it's better to put them at the end to avoid problems.  Plus
that has the added bonus of keeping your drive letters the same for all
OSs.
  As far as a 512 (or 528 depending on where you read it) limit, this can
be overcome by OS/2 as well as DOS.  The limitation is placed by the
BIOS not the OS.  For DOS you can normally get drivers with the drive you buy
that will extend this limit (like ontrack), for OS/2 - the OS just ignores the 
BIOS and goes on.  The problem comes in when you want to use bootmanager. 
 With boot manager you can't use the DOS driver so your DOS session will not 
see beyond the 512 (or 528) MB limit.

j.

jpedone@worldnet.att.net
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/8502
Team OS/2 - Once you try it you'll never leave !

Roderick W. Smith (rodsmith@indiana.edu) wrote:
: In message <59lcnr$lf5@mippet.ci.com.au> - Antonio Lam
: <laman@accsoft.com.au>23 Dec 1996 07:35:23 GMT writes:
: > 
: > In Australia, one of the leading PC magazine, PC User, comparing
: > Win95, WinNT and OS/2 Warp in the Operation System Section of the Vol
: > 9 Number 1 January 1997 issue, says:
: > 
: > "Both OS/2 and NT directly support RAID (redundant array of
: > inexpensive drives) for reliable sky's-the-limit storage, while
: > Windows 95 doesn't.  On the other hand, OS/2 Warp needs help to handle
: > IDE disks larger than 512kb."
: [snip]
:
: Fourth, OS/2 has long been able to handle drives that have more than
: 1024 cylinders (as reported by the BIOS).  Like *ALL* OSes, it can't
: boot from above the 1024-cylinder mark, but OS/2 has been able to
: natively use that space since at least version 2.1, probably earlier. 
: At that time, DOS users were struggling to overcome the limit, but
: OS/2 did it out of the box.  Amazing how the press can twist the
: truth.
: 

Just to put my 2c in.  OS/2 Recognises my 2.5 that my bios doesn't..

I have a P133 with a 1.6g and 2.5g, the bios reports the 1.6 at 1.6, but
recognises my 2.5 at 425mb.. I've been told that a bios upgrade will fix
this, but when I mailed award (their bios help line for upgrades) I got
no reply.

As for the 512mb limit, considering that the 2.5 would start after that
limit, and only os2 recognises it...(not even lynux will do it..) I don't
see their point..

see ya

Paul

-- 
Paul Snow

		"For you, there might be another song,
		But all my heart can hear is your melody"

In message <5a5095$ilh@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> -
jpedone@worldnet.att.net     (Jerry Pedone)29 Dec 1996 05:40:53 GMT writes:
[snip]
:>>How recent a version of Dos ?
[snip]
From memory it was 5.0....


dIon, Multitask Consulting
http://www.multitask.com.au
http://www.multitask.com.au/netrexx

In <pearsonc.21.0008B5D3@melbpc.org.au>, pearsonc@melbpc.org.au (Pearson Cresswell) writes:
>In article <59lcnr$lf5@mippet.ci.com.au> Antonio Lam <laman@accsoft.com.au> writes:
>
>>In Australia, one of the leading PC magazine, PC User, comparing Win95, 
>>WinNT and OS/2 Warp in the Operation System Section of the Vol 9 Number 
>>1 January 1997 issue, says:
>
>>"Both OS/2 and NT directly support RAID (redundant array of inexpensive 
>>drives) for reliable sky's-the-limit storage, while Windows 95 doesn't.  
>>On the other hand, OS/2 Warp needs help to handle IDE disks larger than 
>>512kb."
>
>>That is ridiculous, 512kb is smaller than space available on the floppy 
>>disk.  I think he is talking about the 512MB BIOS limitation.  Could 
>>someone knowledgable write to the editor on "pcuser@apc.com.au" and 
>>explain to the author what 512MB limit is.
>
>Rubbish as you rightly say. I have just installed a second drive (850 MB) on 
>an old system. The BIOS and DOS can't see over 512MB but OS/2 has no trouble.
>
>Note that is in any case necessary to have DOS/FAT partitions at the beginning 
>of the disk as DOS can't see the HPFS partitions.
>
>Pearson

I wrote a nasty letter to that illiterate "writer" as soon as I read that appauling
article.. 512k.. Hmmm ... Did you also note that the WarpCenter cannot be moved from the top? Yeah
right, considering that is how I have mine! (ie on the bottom).. Oh yeah, and the
article also stated that it could multitask on par with Windows95.. <-- funny or what!

Annoyed by ignorant writers... (I also told him to use the OS before writing about it)

Anthony Beckett (#os2's OS2Avatar (au.undernet.org))
TeamOS/2

In message <5al28b$dfq$1@otis.netspace.net.au> -
wanderer@netspace.net.au4 Jan 1997 07:52:43 GMT writes:
> 
> I wrote a nasty letter to that illiterate "writer" as soon as I read
> that appauling article.. 512k.. Hmmm ... Did you also note that the
> WarpCenter cannot be moved from the top? Yeah right, considering that is
> how I have mine! (ie on the bottom).. Oh yeah, and the article also
> stated that it could multitask on par with Windows95.. <-- funny or
> what!
> 
> Annoyed by ignorant writers... (I also told him to use the OS before
> writing about it)

Unfortunately, "nasty letter[s]" and calling writers "illiterate" and
"ignorant" will do little or no good for the OS/2 "cause" and will
likely to it harm.  Consider:  This author of the published article
with factual errors about OS/2 probably knew next to nothing about
OS/2 when he was assigned the task of writing a review of it, but he
HAD TO do the review, so he did the best he could in what was no doubt
an insufficient amount of time.  (Given that this is the way the world
typically works; I'm not trying to claim special knowledge of this
article or this Australian magazine.)  Now, you can gripe about how
the magazine SHOULD HAVE allotted more time, or SHOULD HAVE found
somebody with more knowledge to do the review, or whatever, and such
criticisms have their place -- but this is also the real world, and no
magazine can afford to pay a staff writer (assuming that's what he
was) to futz around with an OS, read the newsgroups, etc., for a
couple of weeks to get up to speed on it before even beginning the
review.  So the guy fumbled around and got some facts wrong.  This is
obviously bad, but....

What happens when this person gets "nasty letter[s]" from OS/2
advocates?  If he's a sleazeball who was out to do a hatchet job on
OS/2, or who just doesn't care, not much.  He'll remain negative or
apathetic, and nothing will change if/when he writes a new review,
except maybe he'll be more negative or refer to OS/2 users in
derogatory ways.  If he's an honest guy who just was given inadequate
time, he'll feel he's being attacked without merit, or at least
attacked above and beyond what's called for given his mistakes.  This
won't endear him to OS/2 or to OS/2 users, and he's likely to refuse
further OS/2 assignments (leaving it to even less experienced hands)
or go at it with a newly-acquired negative bias.

Please, people; successful advocacy does not come from attacking those
who don't "toe the line."  It's fine to correct the factual errors in
published articles, posted messages, etc.; but in order to not come
across as a raving lunatic yourself, you've got to do it politely, and
give the author of the incorrect information the benefit of the doubt.
 In fact, I've seen many claims that the sort of rabid attack-advocacy
I'm bemoaning here was one of the factors leading to the downfall of
the Amiga; the press simply decided that rather than deal with a flood
of letters attacking them for incompetent boobies whenever they got
(what they considered) a minor point wrong, they'd stop covering the
platform.  The same thing could easily happen, and indeed may be
happening, with OS/2.  Please try to be civil in these discussions;
it'll work better.

[Followups redirected exclusively to comp.os.os2.advocacy, where this
most properly belongs.]

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rod Smith                                 Author of:               |
| rodsmith@indiana.edu                      "Should I Buy OS/2" FAQ  |
| http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~rodsmith   "OS/2 Soundcard Summary" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+