Orphaned OS/2 (Another View) - OS2

This is a discussion on Orphaned OS/2 (Another View) - OS2 ; In article , letoureed@nospam.net wrote: > >There is nothing there. Which goes to prove that there are none so blind as those who will not see. -- Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand "New interface closely resembles Presentation ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

  1. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In article <8Fkdi.6515$u65.2934@trndny07>, letoureed@nospam.net wrote:
    >
    >There is nothing there.


    Which goes to prove that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

  2. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Andrew Stephenson wrote:
    > In article
    > dave.r.yeo@gmail.com "Dave Yeo" writes:
    >
    >
    >>I talked to the Authors about Antiword handling text. They did
    >>not want to implement it. They said it was too hard to tell if
    >>a DOC was just plain text.

    >
    >
    > Obviously they are likely to know far more about the Word (spit)
    > formats than I. But I do have a vague memory, from around 1990,
    > that Word (spit) uses a header which of course plain text won't.
    > If they can find a "fingerprint" (common even in simple formats)
    > there, that could distinguish the two file types. Such a marker
    > is likely to appear _very_ early in the file.


    I just took a look at a fairly large number of MSWord doc files on my system
    that I have received from a variety of sources over the years. Three files date
    back to 1995/06/16 and two more are dated 97/05/22. The rest are spread over the
    years 1999-2007. Every single one begins with 'D0CF11E0A1B11AE1'X. Observe that
    the first seven hex digits look more or less like docfile, especially after a
    long day of staring at the screen.

    Also a Google search on MS Word file signature turned up:

    http://www.garykessler.net/library/file_sigs.html

    That seems to nail it down.

  3. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    mike luther wrote:
    > Interesting!
    >
    > Dave Yeo wrote:
    >> mike luther wrote:

    >
    >>> Will this utility handle plain text pre-snitched .DOC files and just
    >>> 'convert' 'text' to text so that you can use this as a 'generic'
    >>> utility to get around the issue as, for example, a called utility for
    >>> all .DOC files in things like File Freedom?
    >>>
    >>> That would be NEAT for me!
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I talked to the Authors about Antiword handling text. They did not
    >> want to implement it. They said it was too hard to tell if a DOC was
    >> just plain text.
    >> Dave

    >
    > Interesting! Plain text is more complicated that M/S .DOC files!
    > Thanks anyway Dave..
    >
    >


    Well DOC files have a header that says they are MS Word files. How do
    you tell text? Remembering different code pages, languages with odd
    letters etc.
    Dave

  4. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In article
    jjw@cs.sfu.ca "James J. Weinkam" writes:

    > Andrew Stephenson wrote:
    >
    > > Obviously they are likely to know far more about the Word (spit)
    > > formats than I. But I do have a vague memory, from around 1990,
    > > that Word (spit) uses a header which of course plain text won't.
    > > If they can find a "fingerprint" (common even in simple formats)
    > > there, that could distinguish the two file types. Such a marker
    > > is likely to appear _very_ early in the file.

    >
    > I just took a look at a fairly large number of MSWord doc files
    > on my system [...] Every single one begins with
    > 'D0CF11E0A1B11AE1'X. [...]
    >
    > Also a Google search on MS Word file signature turned up:
    >
    > http://www.garykessler.net/library/file_sigs.html
    >
    > That seems to nail it down.


    Good research. Ta.
    --
    Andrew Stephenson


  5. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In article
    dave.r.yeo@gmail.com "Dave Yeo" writes:

    > Well DOC files have a header that says they are MS Word files.
    > How do you tell text? Remembering different code pages,
    > languages with odd letters etc.


    You probably don't _need_ to specify code pages: a code point is
    a code point -- just a number.

    If you are converting to another format (say, HTML) which covers
    a larger range of symbols, the converter assume a code page. Or
    maybe the User could preview output of text, wherein code points
    had been >=128, and have the option of approving or moving on to
    another c/page.

    But I suspect most users won't have switched code pages too much
    over the years. CP437 and CP850 would have been popular back in
    the days before M$ commandeered *.DOC. Users outside NA/EU seem
    even more prone to have lasting favourites (Arabic &c). Perhaps
    the app could take two code pages and make two translations, for
    the User to choose from.
    --
    Andrew Stephenson


  6. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In , on 06/18/2007
    at 10:58 PM, black.hole.4.spam@gmail.com (Don Hills) said:



    >In article <8Fkdi.6515$u65.2934@trndny07>, letoureed@nospam.net wrote: >
    >>There is nothing there.


    >Which goes to prove that there are none so blind as those who will not
    >see.



    Son, there is no such thread left on that server.

  7. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In article , letouured@nospam.net wrote:
    >
    >Son, there is no such thread left on that server.


    Which goes to prove that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

    The original URL was posted by David Yeo earlier in this thread.
    It was a long one that wrapped over several lines,
    so for the cognitively challenged:

    http://tinyurl.com/2o4yet

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

  8. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Andrew Stephenson wrote:
    > In article
    > dave.r.yeo@gmail.com "Dave Yeo" writes:
    >
    >> Well DOC files have a header that says they are MS Word files.
    >> How do you tell text? Remembering different code pages,
    >> languages with odd letters etc.

    >
    > You probably don't _need_ to specify code pages: a code point is
    > a code point -- just a number.
    >
    > If you are converting to another format (say, HTML) which covers
    > a larger range of symbols, the converter assume a code page. Or
    > maybe the User could preview output of text, wherein code points
    > had been >=128, and have the option of approving or moving on to
    > another c/page.
    >
    > But I suspect most users won't have switched code pages too much
    > over the years. CP437 and CP850 would have been popular back in
    > the days before M$ commandeered *.DOC. Users outside NA/EU seem
    > even more prone to have lasting favourites (Arabic &c). Perhaps
    > the app could take two code pages and make two translations, for
    > the User to choose from.


    Remember this is a port from RiscOS and can display(?) postscript as
    well as text. I have no idea how RiscOS handles codepages and even
    though I am capable of recompiling the code and applying a few small
    fixes I do not want to fork the code and make it OS/2 specific.
    No time or expertise.
    Dave

  9. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    James J. Weinkam wrote:
    > Andrew Stephenson wrote:
    >> In article
    >> dave.r.yeo@gmail.com "Dave Yeo" writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>> I talked to the Authors about Antiword handling text. They did
    >>> not want to implement it. They said it was too hard to tell if
    >>> a DOC was just plain text.

    >>
    >>
    >> Obviously they are likely to know far more about the Word (spit)
    >> formats than I. But I do have a vague memory, from around 1990,
    >> that Word (spit) uses a header which of course plain text won't.
    >> If they can find a "fingerprint" (common even in simple formats)
    >> there, that could distinguish the two file types. Such a marker
    >> is likely to appear _very_ early in the file.

    >
    > I just took a look at a fairly large number of MSWord doc files on my
    > system that I have received from a variety of sources over the years.
    > Three files date back to 1995/06/16 and two more are dated 97/05/22. The
    > rest are spread over the years 1999-2007. Every single one begins with
    > 'D0CF11E0A1B11AE1'X. Observe that the first seven hex digits look more
    > or less like docfile, especially after a long day of staring at the screen.
    >
    > Also a Google search on MS Word file signature turned up:
    >
    > http://www.garykessler.net/library/file_sigs.html
    >
    > That seems to nail it down.


    PMWord doesn't. Starts with 9C A5 21 00.
    Of course unlike all the other 16 bit presentation manager apps I have
    Word for OS/2 behaves very badly. Trying to load other word docs causes
    errors about not being able to open various DLLs. (even with BEGINLIBPATH)
    Anyways the problem is not identifying word files but identifying text
    files.
    Dave

  10. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In article dave.r.yeo@gmail.com "Dave Yeo" writes:

    > Andrew Stephenson wrote:
    > > In article
    > > dave.r.yeo@gmail.com "Dave Yeo" writes:
    > >
    > >> Well DOC files have a header that says they are MS Word files.
    > >> How do you tell text? Remembering different code pages,
    > >> languages with odd letters etc.

    > >
    > > You probably don't _need_ to specify code pages: a code point is
    > > a code point -- just a number.
    > >
    > > [further discussion]

    >
    > Remember this is a port from RiscOS and can display(?) postscript as
    > well as text. I have no idea how RiscOS handles codepages and even
    > though I am capable of recompiling the code and applying a few small
    > fixes I do not want to fork the code and make it OS/2 specific.
    > No time or expertise.


    Understood. Okay, another approach I can envisage, which might
    open it up for several others to accomplish, would be a sniffer
    which checks the target file for M$-ness and reports to a batch
    program, which then calls the M$.DOC translator if it's needed.
    --
    Andrew Stephenson


  11. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In , on 06/20/2007
    at 02:19 PM, black.hole.4.spam@gmail.com (Don Hills) said:



    >In article , letouured@nospam.net wrote: >
    >>Son, there is no such thread left on that server.


    >Which goes to prove that there are none so blind as those who will not
    >see.


    >The original URL was posted by David Yeo earlier in this thread. It was a
    >long one that wrapped over several lines,
    >so for the cognitively challenged:


    >http://tinyurl.com/2o4yet



    Take your anger and whining somewhere else hills.

    Before he posted the URL, I checked the newsgroup. There was no thread
    there. I responded to that fact.







  12. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In article , letooured@nospam.net wrote:
    >In , on 06/20/2007
    > at 02:19 PM, black.hole.4.spam@gmail.com (Don Hills) said:
    >
    >>http://tinyurl.com/2o4yet

    >
    >Take your anger and whining somewhere else hills.


    Ah, there's the Ed we know. It didn't take long for you to crack.

    >Before he posted the URL, I checked the newsgroup. There was no thread
    >there. I responded to that fact.


    Uh huh. Before he posted the URL, the thread did not exist? As usual, you're
    denying reality. The reality is that the thread was there, you just missed it.

    QED.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

  13. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)


    Stop the whining hills. You're still the same idiot you were years ago.
    And l learn to read! -->I downloaded everything on that newsgroup. The
    cited thread was not there. I commented on the fact.

    Now be sure to show us just how stupid you are by whining some more, like
    the bipolar that you are.






    In , on 06/21/2007
    at 10:24 AM, black.hole.4.spam@gmail.com (Don Hills) said:



    >In article , letooured@nospam.net wrote:
    >>In , on 06/20/2007
    >> at 02:19 PM, black.hole.4.spam@gmail.com (Don Hills) said:
    >>
    >>>http://tinyurl.com/2o4yet

    >>
    >>Take your anger and whining somewhere else hills.


    >Ah, there's the Ed we know. It didn't take long for you to crack.


    >>Before he posted the URL, I checked the newsgroup. There was no thread
    >>there. I responded to that fact.


    >Uh huh. Before he posted the URL, the thread did not exist? As usual,
    >you're denying reality. The reality is that the thread was there, you
    >just missed it.


    >QED.





  14. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    Here in comp.os.os2.misc, letoureed@nospam.net spake unto us, saying:

    >In , on 06/17/2007
    > at 05:07 AM, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) said:
    >
    >>Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
    >>Dave Yeo spake unto us, saying:

    >
    >>>Google archives mozilla.dev.ports.os2.

    >
    >>Heh. I feel stupid. :-) Thanks!

    >
    >There is nothing there.


    I had no trouble finding what I was looking for. It's still there:

    http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

    It's a trivial thing to do with a hex editor, though the Adobe Flash
    detection page doesn't seem to be fooled. I'm using Flash 7 R14 here,
    though. Maybe that version can't be hacked?

    I obviously changed the strings I edited to match the version I have;
    maybe I should use "9.0 r69" and "9,0,69" instead? :-)

    I love this VIO hex editor, BTW (HeD v1.78b):

    http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/apps/editors/hed178b.zip

    --
    -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
    Mainframe/Unix bit twiddler by day, OS/2+Linux+DOS hobbyist by night.
    WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

  15. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In article ,
    rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) wrote:
    >Here in comp.os.os2.misc, letoureed@nospam.net spake unto us, saying:
    >
    >I had no trouble finding what I was looking for. It's still there:
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups


    Yeah, just Ed being a 'tard again.

    >It's a trivial thing to do with a hex editor, though the Adobe Flash
    >detection page doesn't seem to be fooled. I'm using Flash 7 R14 here,
    >though. Maybe that version can't be hacked?


    It worked for most sites for me but not all. Ah well, no biggy. During my
    testing I did see that a couple of sites have a button with text to the
    effect of: "Later varsion of Flash required, but click here to go ahead
    anyway." Good to see some programmers are on the ball.

    >I love this VIO hex editor, BTW (HeD v1.78b):
    >
    > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/apps/editors/hed178b.zip


    Thanks. That's better than the one I was using. It does disassembly too so
    you can zap executables more easily.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286

  16. Re: Orphaned OS/2 (Another View)

    In , on 06/20/2007
    at 11:04 PM, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) said:



    >Here in comp.os.os2.misc, letoureed@nospam.net spake unto us, saying:


    >>In , on 06/17/2007
    >> at 05:07 AM, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) said:
    >>
    >>>Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
    >>>Dave Yeo spake unto us, saying:

    >>
    >>>>Google archives mozilla.dev.ports.os2.

    >>
    >>>Heh. I feel stupid. :-) Thanks!

    >>
    >>There is nothing there.


    >I had no trouble finding what I was looking for. It's still there:


    Well guess what: MR2 does not pull the thread off the newsgroup.

    The url below is not for the thread being on the newsgroup, as it was
    stated. Its for the archived copy -- which is not the same thing. That
    is what I reported on. There is no issue here except for the sniveling
    and whining of don hills.



    > http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups


    >It's a trivial thing to do with a hex editor, though the Adobe Flash
    >detection page doesn't seem to be fooled. I'm using Flash 7 R14 here,
    >though. Maybe that version can't be hacked?


    >I obviously changed the strings I edited to match the version I have;
    >maybe I should use "9.0 r69" and "9,0,69" instead? :-)


    >I love this VIO hex editor, BTW (HeD v1.78b):


    > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/apps/editors/hed178b.zip





+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3