From: Digest To: "OS/2GenAu Digest" Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:01:02 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 835 Reply-To: X-List-Unsubscribe: www.os2site.com/list/ ************************************************** Tuesday 13 April 2004 Number 835 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Win XP reqs : Ed Durrant 2 Re: Win XP reqs : Ed Durrant 3 Re: ot: MM or SD cards ? : Ed Durrant 4 Re: usb memory card support : Mark Dodel" 5 Re: ot: MM or SD cards ? : voytek at sbt dot net dot au 6 Re: Mozilla problem : Robert Traynor (BobT)" 7 Re: Broadband : Michael Barrow" 8 Re: Win XP reqs : Ed Durrant 9 Open Office 1.1.1 for OS/2 : Ed Durrant 10 Re: Open Office 1.1.1 for OS/2 : Mike O'Connor 11 Re: Open Office 1.1.1 for OS/2 : David Shearer" 12 Re: Win XP reqs : Mike O'Connor 13 Sticky : freiherr at earthlink dot net 14 Re: Sticky : Mike O'Connor **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:06:39 +1000 From: Ed Durrant Subject: Re: Win XP reqs Mike O'Connor wrote: > > > Hi Ed, > > Looking at your previously furnished LVM output, I think the problem is > that in that extended partition, it can't see the FAT16 drive E:, M$ has > a problem that's well documented with logical drives [of FS types that > it *accepts*] not being recognised when preceded by non-accepted FS > types. I don't have [didn't keep] the relevant references, but there > have been many, which is one reason for advising non-compatibility > partitions all be placed at the *end* of the extended partition - which > is probably why LVM has *end* of freespace as default selection on creation. > > Note this condition applied prior to the advent of LVM also. > > > Thanks Mike, that's worth a try - I can either remove completely or convert the FAT Drive. Cheers/2 Ed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:12:31 +1000 From: Ed Durrant Subject: Re: Win XP reqs Thanks Kris and Chris, Yes I knew about the 1024 restriction, that's why I move everything around to make a 2GB partition at the front of the drive for XP (which would become C in the XP world). However XP install still complained - I think Mike has found the problem, that XP doesn't like *ANY* partitions that it recognises (eg FAT) above this 1024 boundry, even though it's not going to use them. Cheers/2 Ed. Kris Steenhaut wrote: > Chris Graham [WarpSpeed] wrote: > > >Technically, ALL boot partitions must Start and End in the first 1024 > >cylinders. > > > > > > > allow me to correct: > "WINDOWS XP bootpartition must start and end in the first 1024 > cylinders; on top of that, all other Windies must boot from C: ." > > -- > Groeten uit Gent, > > Kris > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:17:04 +1000 From: Ed Durrant Subject: Re: ot: MM or SD cards ? Hi Voytek, I think you mean SD or MMC cards ? Correct I couldn't get my combined USB memory key / SD+MMC card reader to work in card reader mode on OS/2. That doesn't mean others wont work though. I'm lucky that I can connect and read the dat directly from my digital camera (either from the internal memory or the SD card). MMC cards tend to be about 10% cheaper than SD cards although SD cards are easier to get. Apart from that I don't know aht the differences are. Cheers/2 Ed. voytek at sbt dot net dot au wrote: > I have a new Palm which apprently can take either SD or MM cards, what the > difference, which ones should I buy, sd or mm ? > > also, which card readers works/doesn't work with OS/2, (more) feedback sought > > Ed, if I recall, your DSE reader had problems ? > > Voytek > > =========================================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:43:26 -0300 From: "Mark Dodel" Subject: Re: usb memory card support In <0007942850.0000YMCR at mail.>, on 03/24/04 at 10:12 AM, "Mark Dodel" said: >>Ed, >>pls post any findings >>I'm about to get a new Palm, that takes SD and MMC cards, I presume, I >>can backup to card, then, save to PC As a followup to this, Brad Barclay has posted some source for an OS/2 USB Java class to use with his JSyncManager for interfacing Palm devices to OS/2 via USB. I have not had a chance to look at this yet. I just bought a serial cradle for my Garmin iQue, and plan to first get JSyncManager working with that and then try to compile the USB stuff if no one else does before that. JSM can be found at http://www.jsyncmanager dot org Mark -- From the eComStation Desktop of: Mark Dodel Warpstock 2004, Denver, Colorado, October 21 - 24, 2004 http://www.warpstock dot org For a choice in the future of personal computing, Join VOICE - http://www.os2voice dot org "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That in it's essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message proposing the Monopoly Investigation, 1938 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:06:31 +1000 (EST) From: voytek at sbt dot net dot au Subject: Re: ot: MM or SD cards ? > I think you mean SD or MMC cards ? Correct I couldn't get my combined > USB memory > key / SD+MMC card reader to work in card reader mode on OS/2. That doesn't > mean others > wont work though. I'm lucky that I can connect and read the dat directly > from my > digital camera (either from the internal memory or the SD card). > MMC cards tend to be about 10% cheaper than SD cards although SD cards > are easier to > get. Apart from that I don't know aht the differences are. Ed, this is what someone else told me: --------------------------------- voytek at sbt dot net dot au was once rumoured to have said: > I have a new Palm which apprently can take either SD or MM cards, what the > difference, which ones should I buy, sd or mm ? The two are electronically compatible, but SD protocol is a superset of the MMC protocol resulting in not all SD cards working in MMC-only systems. The SD protocol is closed to members of the SD group, and it is against the licensing terms to publish the details of implementation for a SD driver (aparently). For this reason, Linux does not support SD without the use of closed source drivers. (The only ones I'm aware of are the ones that Sharp ships on the Zaurus). MMC OTOH, is fairly well supported. You're best off getting a MM card if the price difference is negligable since you can read them in pretty much anything with a MMC/SD reader. ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:34:47 +1000 From: "Robert Traynor (BobT)" Subject: Re: Mozilla problem Hi Alan, Try updating your Kernal files with the eCS MT or if Warp4 grab the latest kernals off os2site dot com. Regards, Robert Traynor (BobT). 13 April 2004 15:34 On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:38:02 +1000 (AEST), Alan Duval wrote: > Hi, > > I spoke too soon. Went to open Mozilla 1.4 again and the system crashed and showed this error message > > Exception in module: os2KRNL > TRAP 000e ERRCD = 0000 ERACC = **** ERLIM = ******** > EAX = 0008b505 EBX = 00000344 ECX = 00687c3c EDX = 00000000 > ESI = 00000000 EDI = f9d02d1a EBP = 00004f8e FLG = 00012207 > CS:EIP = 0168:fff48842 CSACC = c09b CSLIM = ffffffff > SS:ESP = 003000004f6a SSACC = 1097 SSLIM = 0000429f > DS = 0160 DSACC = c093 DSLIM = ffffffff CR0 = 8001001b > ES = 0160 ESACC = c093 ESLIM = ffffffff CR2 = 00000000 > FS = 03c0 FSACC = 0093 FSLIM = ******** > > The system detected an internal processing error at > location ##0168:fff1eb6b - 000e:cb6b. > 60000, 9084 > > 07860686 > Internal revision 14.093_W4 > > Rebooted and this time opened Mozilla successfully. > > Haven't a clue what the error message means or what I should do. Could someone please enlighten me? > > > Regards > Alan Duval ,-._|\ Robert Traynor (BobT) / Oz \ email rtraynor at removeme.optusnet dot com dot au \_,--.x/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:06:39 GMT From: "Michael Barrow" Subject: Re: Broadband > On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:49:47 +1000, Dennis J. Nolan wrote: > > Hi all > > I'm seeking advice > > > > I think it is time for me to go ADSL Large SNIP Been busy so I have only joined the thread now. I run ADSL from iinet with the earlier version of the netcomm 1300 with only one port. Setup is done via a web page that you browse to using the default IP address that the modem comes with. You then enter the default login/password (don't forget to change all that) and you have a simple page to add the few values needed. If you already run a network then most of the rest of the work is done. Consideration will need to be given to the IP addresses you use in your own network and I would reccommend using a correct private network series like the 192, (there are I think two other sets), but 192 is used by many of the modems out of the box. If you would like more info Dennis on my setup let me know and I'll take you though it off list. Regards, Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:49:43 +1000 From: Ed Durrant Subject: Re: Win XP reqs Mike O'Connor wrote: > Hi Eric, > Basically M$ doesn't like to boot from anything other than BIOS disk 80H > - the first hard-disk. If you have a FAT16/32/NTFS Primary partition on > the first hard disk, you can install NT/W2K/XP on the second hard-disk > [mainly], but it still boots *through* that FAT16/32/NTFS C: partition. > If you don't have a FAT16/32/NTFS primary on first disk , e.g. > OS2-eCS+LINUX|NETWARE, it won't install on the second disk. Things can > be "fudged" however, but it takes a lot of playing around to get it to work. > > -- > Regards, > Mike Hi Mike, One thing I have seen is that LVM appears to reference my (only) harddisk as disk number 2 not 1. This could also be something that XP doesn't like possibly. Cheers/2 Ed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:27:52 +1000 From: Ed Durrant Subject: Open Office 1.1.1 for OS/2 It's arrived ! Stuffed into my mailbox by our friendly postman in such a way that it was difficult to get out, I was expecting the CD to be broken but luckily it wasn't. So I started the install by simply clicking on install.exe in the root directory of the CD. It then proceeds to check if the current versions of Innotek fontlib, Innotek Runtime and Sun Java are installed and if not gives you the option to install them. This logic is good, except after each individual install the flow stops and you have to go back and restart install.exe again. Eventually one get to the installation of Open Office however before this you are prompted from a command mode window to confirm various install options which appear to be a repeat of the previous support components. The command mode windows and the lack of continuity leaves a feeling that it could be done better but what really is annoying is several beeps and a simple message at the end of the install "Installation not complete" - no reasons, simply not complete ! - But it hasn't actually failed !! a couple of seconds later after pressing exit, the registration panel comes up and accepts your registration information. Well, now everything should be there right ? No, no folder, no icons, no nothing !! Try to run the executable soffice.exe and it gives an executable error. So my initial impression of this new product is "less than perfect" ...... Cheers/2 Ed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:37:32 +1000 From: Mike O'Connor Subject: Re: Open Office 1.1.1 for OS/2 Ed Durrant wrote: >It's arrived ! > >Stuffed into my mailbox by our friendly postman in such a >way that it was difficult to get out, I was expecting the CD >to be broken but luckily it wasn't. > >So I started the install by simply clicking on install.exe >in the root directory of the CD. It then proceeds to check >if the current versions of Innotek fontlib, Innotek Runtime >and Sun Java are installed and if not gives you the option >to install them. > >This logic is good, except after each individual install the >flow stops and you have to go back and restart install.exe >again. > >Eventually one get to the installation of Open Office >however before this you are prompted from a command mode >window to confirm various install options which appear to be >a repeat of the previous support components. > >The command mode windows and the lack of continuity leaves a >feeling that it could be done better but what really is >annoying is several beeps and a simple message at the end of >the install "Installation not complete" - no reasons, simply >not complete ! - But it hasn't actually failed !! a couple >of seconds later after pressing exit, the registration panel >comes up and accepts your registration information. > >Well, now everything should be there right ? No, no folder, >no icons, no nothing !! > >Try to run the executable soffice.exe and it gives an >executable error. > >So my initial impression of this new product is "less than >perfect" ...... > >Cheers/2 > > Ed, It may be like Object Desktop/Xworkplace etc., that need a reboot[desktop restart for XWP - but I always do a reboot instead] to actually create all the desktop objects etc. Have you rebooted since installing? -- 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 11 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:40:46 +1000 From: "David Shearer" Subject: Re: Open Office 1.1.1 for OS/2 I ordered mine via digital delivery. It installed fine - you need to reboot once after it updates the runtime I recall, then it installed flawlessly - no error messages - i thought it was rather slick. Maybe the CD rom version isn't the same as the download version?? So far I quite like OO. David On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:27:52 +1000, Ed Durrant wrote: >It's arrived ! > >Stuffed into my mailbox by our friendly postman in such a >way that it was difficult to get out, I was expecting the CD >to be broken but luckily it wasn't. > >So I started the install by simply clicking on install.exe >in the root directory of the CD. It then proceeds to check >if the current versions of Innotek fontlib, Innotek Runtime >and Sun Java are installed and if not gives you the option >to install them. > >This logic is good, except after each individual install the >flow stops and you have to go back and restart install.exe >again. > >Eventually one get to the installation of Open Office >however before this you are prompted from a command mode >window to confirm various install options which appear to be >a repeat of the previous support components. > >The command mode windows and the lack of continuity leaves a >feeling that it could be done better but what really is >annoying is several beeps and a simple message at the end of >the install "Installation not complete" - no reasons, simply >not complete ! - But it hasn't actually failed !! a couple >of seconds later after pressing exit, the registration panel >comes up and accepts your registration information. > >Well, now everything should be there right ? No, no folder, >no icons, no nothing !! > >Try to run the executable soffice.exe and it gives an >executable error. > >So my initial impression of this new product is "less than >perfect" ...... > >Cheers/2 > >Ed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:54:20 +1000 From: Mike O'Connor Subject: Re: Win XP reqs Ed Durrant wrote: >Mike O'Connor wrote: > >>Hi Eric, >>Basically M$ doesn't like to boot from anything other than BIOS disk 80H >>- the first hard-disk. If you have a FAT16/32/NTFS Primary partition on >>the first hard disk, you can install NT/W2K/XP on the second hard-disk >>[mainly], but it still boots *through* that FAT16/32/NTFS C: partition. >>If you don't have a FAT16/32/NTFS primary on first disk , e.g. >>OS2-eCS+LINUX|NETWARE, it won't install on the second disk. Things can >>be "fudged" however, but it takes a lot of playing around to get it to work. >> >>-- >>Regards, >>Mike >> >> >Hi Mike, > > One thing I have seen is that LVM appears to reference my (only) harddisk as disk number 2 not 1. This could also be something that XP doesn't like possibly. > >Cheers/2 > > Hi Ed, Was that HDU initially set up when it was a slave to another? That would explain the numbering! If you have the Graham Utils [a limited edition came with eCS [both issues IIRC]], use diskedit.exe to have a look at the boot-sectors of the bootable partitions, or logical HPFS for that matter, as any of those can *become* bootable, to check what value shows up there. Syntax is "diskedit -nolock :" for logical drives, just to examine - and if you need to alter values [in HEX is best], use "diskedit -nolock -allowwrites :" If examining the physical disk the syntax is "diskedit -nolock p #" where #=1 for first physical disk, 2 = . . . .". You just open up the partition/volume with that commandline, accept the proffered cyl/hd/sec values, and press [F11] to get to edit mode, select the "Edit as Boot-sector" and you'll have the information laid out for you on screen. XP, along with *every* other M$ OS definitely doesn't accept booting from BIOS-numbered HD 81H [129 decimal], XOSL boot-Loader has a feature that lets you fool M$ into thinking it's on HDU 80H, by swapping the numbers between physical drives. HTH -- 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 13 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:02:24 -0400 From: freiherr at earthlink dot net Subject: Sticky Does anyone know how to make an application "stickey" across multiple desktops in eCS 1.1? This is the same effect as toggling the "pushpin" gadget in Linux KDE presentations. I remember reading somewhere that it can be done, but don't remember how, and didn't save the details. Regards, Eric Schilke Copyright (c) 2004. All rights reserved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:12:34 +1000 From: Mike O'Connor Subject: Re: Sticky freiherr at earthlink dot net wrote: >Does anyone know how to make an application "stickey" across multiple >desktops in eCS 1.1? This is the same effect as toggling the >"pushpin" gadget in Linux KDE presentations. I remember reading >somewhere that it can be done, but don't remember how, and didn't save >the details. > >Regards, >Eric Schilke > > Hi Eric, I use the OD equivalent, but ISTR that you have to go into the SCREEN object, ePager tab and you'll find options there on making applications sticky -- 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] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------