(Excerpts from a message dated 10-30-99, Eddy Thilleman to Jack
Pfisterer)

Hi Eddy--

JP> You are questioning IBM's opinion that your NUMLOCK should be off?

ET>Numlock should be ON, that's my opinion. I don't need two sets of
  >keys for cursor movement.

    NumLock should be OFF.  I don't need two sets of number keys :-).

    Actually, there are valid, objective reasons why the normal boot of
any PC operating system should be to NumLock OFF.  These reasons are not
matters of opinion.

    For example:  I run Warp 4 on a ThinkPad (laptop).  When I am
working at my desk, the ThinkPad is docked and I use an external
keyboard and display.  Under these circumstances, since I don't use the
keypad except to enter "extended ASCII" characters, whether OS/2 boots
to NumLock ON or NumLock OFF doesn't make any difference to me.  (There
may be application-dependent problems associated with the "virtual
console" accompanying each of the several sessions that are running
multitasked, but that subject is outside the scope of this discussion.)

    However, when I am on the road, I have only a "virtual" keypad, with
its key positions superimposed on a portion of the normal alphameric
keyboard.  NumLock ON shifts that portion of the keyboard to keypad
numeric use; there is a keyboard routine (while NumLock is ON) to use if
I should ever want to use the keypad for cursor control; and another
keyboard routine to turn NumLock OFF completely and return to normal
keyboard use.  Obviously, no one in his/her right mind would want a
laptop to boot any operating system to NumLock ON.

    Regards,

        --Murray

___
 * MR/2 2.25 #120 * There, that will do until a REAL explanation comes along.

--- Maximus/2 2.02