Re: IBM & Microsoft don't support WFWG on 755?

[Michael Verne/VENTANA <Michael_Verne/VENTANA.ITP@LGATE.vmedia.com>]

"....755CX yesterday, I called IBM's Help Center to find out why. IBM 
told me they don't support WFWG on the 755 and to call Microsoft.
Microsoft says they don't support WFWG on ThinkPads (including 755).
I think this SUCKS.  These companies are like two kids bickering
with each other.  Unfortunately, it's their customers who are
suffering.

Based on some of your feedback, it appears I need to reformat my
hard drive, reload DOS and WFWG, and everything should work okay.
I guess I'll never find out why WFWG won't load over Windows 3.1
on a 755CX ThinkPAd.  IBM and Microsoft sure won't tell me.

Does WFWG run okay on a 755 ThinkPad or is this just "politics"...."
 
~~~~~~~~~~

"....I don't know if this will solve the problem, but I have have some faint
memory that I had to uninstall the display drivers, upgrade, and then 
reinstall them. That is, windows has problems using the 32-bit display
drivers during the install - use the ordinary VGA driver temporarily....."

~~~~~~~~~~

IBM won't support WFWG on any boxes until they start shipping it preloaded, 
like almost everyone else in the world is doing.  I think it sucks, too, 
because, networking aside, there isn't much difference.  WFWG runs just fine on 
755s.  I have some running IBM's Windoze preload with the WFWG Upgrade ($45) & 
some have been reformatted & have pure WFWG installed.  I can't find a 
difference except that by doing the upgrade, you don't lose all the program 
icons that IBM ships installed.  I have learned the hard way that you really 
should make those diskette factory backups before you do anything with your 
box.  Otherwise IBM will have no mercy on you.  Eric's right about the video.  
I've had problems when I don't bump it down to VGA before installing the 
upgrade, install it set to VGA, then go back to whatever you want to run.

What is the big deal with 32-bit disk access?!?  It's *not* twice as fast, not 
nearly.  As far as I know, it simply doubles the length, not the width, of the 
I/O stream, cutting out a very small amount of I/O overhead.  32-bit File 
access seems to have a greater improvement on performance than disk access and 
it doesn't bring all the compatability issues with it that 32-bit disk access 
has.

OK, I've done my spring email cleaning for the week.  I'll leave you all alone 
now.

Michael J. Verne
mverne@vmedia.com
Systems Analyst, Ventana Communications Group, Inc.