HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: WIN3-L@UICVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"WIN3-L@UICVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:20:00 EST
From:         Michael Gordon <GORDONM@DENISON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: MS Access database

>
>STOP THE PRESSES!
>I just got some mail from MicroSoft.  They have released MS Access for
>$130 (Can., $100 US).  It has Wizards (very helpful in Excel and Money)
>and can handle graphics (including video).  I am growing very old waiting
>for Borland to get off its bloated duff and come up with a windows
>version of Paradox, I think I'll take them up on the offer.  Anyone
>out there know more information?
>Louis

I can add a couple of things:
        1) Microsoft opened today a forum on Compuserve devoted to ACCESS; the
name--oddly enough--is MSACCESS
        2) I just received, also today, the typical Microsoft glossy brochure
on ACCESS (earlier inquiries had resulted in unreadable--and long--faxes). If
anyone want to order the glossy, the part # is 098-33027
        3) Microsoft is also taking order for--but not yet shipping, I
think--demo disks for ACCESS. Be insistent if you call for one, one out of
three operators insists that there is no such product.

Michael D. Gordon
gordonM@cc.denison.edu
Date sent:  16-NOV-1992 17:20:29
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:43:51 -0600
Reply-To:     Jim Nantz <csjdn@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was csjdn@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU
From:         CSJDN@ECNUXA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Hard drive problems w/Win3.1 & DOS 5.0

On Fri, 20 Nov 1992, Craig Bull wrote:

> I've got a Zenith 386/20 with a 70MB hard drive and 8MB of RAM.  I
> noticed a slow down in performance of the system.  So, on a whim, I
> ran Norton's SI utility on it.  The hard drive throughput was extremely
> low, about 58.7 KB/sec.  If I boot the computer clean, throughput leaps
> to about 690 KB/sec.
>
> So, after some fooling around with CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT, I've
> determined that the culprit of this change in performance is EMM386.EXE.
> If I don't load it, everything is fine (690 KB/sec).  If I do load it,
> thru-put drops to 58 KB/sec.  Does anyone have any idea what would cause
> this problem?
>
> I've removed all memory but the original 2MB, with no change.  The copy
> of EMM386.EXE is version 4.44, dated 3-10-92.  It came with Windows 3.1.
> No matter what I've tried, EMM386 causes a slowdown.
>
> I'd appreciate any thoughts you may have.
>
>
>
> ======================================================================
> Craig Bull
> Software Support Specialist
> Microcomputer Services
> University of Dayton
> BITNET:   BULL@DAYTON.BITNET    InterNet: bull@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu
> ======================================================================

I requested a solution to a similar problem of speed loss.
Could the problems be related?
The only response I got from my earlier post was to increase RAM and
upgrade to DOS 5.0.  This is not possible.

I loose 80% of my CPU
Speed as measured by NORTON SI.EXE Benchmark test when I am in windows (or
an application) and access drive A.

This happens without exception as a result of the following actions:

When I start Windows and run si.exe the benchmark test of the CPU speed is
13-15. If I then access drive A;, such as through the DOS Shell, Then
access drive C: again, the si.exe benchmark speed drops to 2-3. It stays
at this speed until I close Windows.

I am running a 2 yr old Zenith with the following:
Intel 80386-16 CPU
Intel 80387-16 Math co-processor
2mg RAM
VGA (256Kb)
MS-DOS 4.01 with BIOS VER 4.00.06
Windows 3.1 in 386 enhanced mode.

Thank You

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|  Jim Nantz                                  Internet: CSJDN@bgu.edu      |
|  Microcomputer Software Specialist          Bitnet:   CSJDN@ecnuxa.bitnet|
|  Physical Plant                                              __o
|  Eastern Illinois University                                _\ <,_       |
|  Charleston IL, 61920                                      (_)/ (_)      |
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:23:33 MET
From:         J.vanHoof@FYS.RUU.NL
Subject:      re: Equation Editor

I had the same problem and contacted Microsoft about it. They adviced me
several tactics wich didn't work. At last they send me a new version for free
(I think it was version 2.0a, but i'm not sure). After this everything worked
fine.


Joost van Hoof
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Internet: J.vanHoof@fys.ruu.nl
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:53:27 EET
From:         Jaak Henno <jaak@VTOLD.VTOL.FI>
Subject:      Re: Problems with VideoBlaster Card
              92 1:24 pm

I have tried to install VideoBlaster card in my Olivetti M380/XP4 PC
without a total success: my problem is its Frame Buffer Memory Base
which must be above the address area of my PC (8 MB RAM). Using
VBSetUp I have used both VB Default value 15 MB and some other values
above 8 MB without a success. All other parts of VBTest program have
been OK, but Frame Memory Buffer Base test has failed. When I try to
save pictures (e.g., in PCX and BMP formats), I will get a silly
file... I have asked a help from Creative Labs Technical Service
(Singapore), but they have not been able to identify my problem.
Do you guess a reason for my failure with VideoBlaster?

I am not a member of this list, so please send your reply to my
email address: eloranta@uta.fi.

Dr. Kari T. Eloranta
University of Tampere, Finland
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:22:08 CST
From:         Bob Lowe <BOBL@VM1.UCA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: File Corrupt, Please Help!!!!!
              16 Nov 1992 23:51:40 -0600 from <bollap@BIT.CSC.LSU.EDU>

Good luck with a labor intensive job!!

In the future you should examine the format of your friend's disk.  I had a
disk drive which formatted my floppies 2x the intended capacity (730K vs 360K).
Needless to say when I tried to pull up documents in WP many times half of the
file was stored in the inaccessible half of the disk.  A format command at boot
up solved the problem.  Perhaps this may be cause of your friends problem.  Any
way you can never have too many back-ups!!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:01:52 DNT
From:         "Hans D. Jensen" <DFMHDJ@VM.UNI-C.DK>
Subject:      Speedstar drivers

Hi,
I recently posted a qeustion regarding Diamond SpeedStar video drivers
for Windows 3.1. I got hold of the latest bunch, the file SPDSTAR6.ZIP,
and tried to use the Turbo ... drivers (from Binar (?)), but doing that
I could not start Windows (got the logo and then returned to DOS).
Some other netters had similar problems. Well, now I found the solution,
it was QEMM. I now got the Turbo Windows drivers to work while also
using the Stealth option under QEMM. All I had to do was to exclude
some more ROM space, in this case C000-C7FF. For those out there
with video driver problems, if you are using QEMM, that probably
where you have to look.

Hans D. Jensen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: WIN3-L@UICVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"WIN3-L@UICVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:12:34 -0600
From:         FARAGHER@MSCD.BITNET
Subject:      Re: HP LaserJet Output

This may sound sophmoric but did you take the felt tab off the end of the toner
cartridge? It is taped on to the end but is to be used for cleaning the corona
wire. Another suggestion - make sure the corona wire has been
cleaned.......Mike
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:35:00 EST
From:         "JFT@NCCIBM1.BITNET" <JFT@NCCIBM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Stealth compatible monitors?

Hi,

  Does anyone know what a NEX 3D is capable of?  I have a 3D and
had nothing but trouble when I tried to install my Diamond
Stealth card.  I called tech support a few times, but it didn't
help.  It has been almost a year now, the card is sitting at
home in its box still.  I can't remeber the problems I had,
I think it kept locking up when I started windows, or I could
start windows but Pagemaker would lock, something like that.
Maybe I can trade it in for and ATI or one of those other boards?

  Any comments, flames, suggestions appreciated,

John.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:27:59 CET
From:         Joern-Morten Innselset <VEI92001@NOBIVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: File Corrupt, Please Help!!!!!
              17 Nov 1992 16:18:00 MET from <piotrk@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:18:00 MET Piotr Kmiec said:
>
>WARNING & advice:
>
>NEVER try to recover files with chkdsk or NDD on original corrupted disk.
>First make a copy via diskcopy, and play with it. Of course this doesn't
>apply to hard disks. Anyway, chkdsk|NDD is NOT  a good tool for recovering
>data.
> It mostly can only recover disk space, not data. The best way to recover
>data is to do it "by hand" using some disk editor like DiskEdit from Norton
>Utilities.

 I can only agree with Piotr on this subject. NDD is almost USELESS when it
comes to recovering lost data. On the contrary, I have found that the Norton
Disk Test (DT) does a very decent job in moving the data to a safe location.
You can even specify single files to test & fix, so it does a better job much
faster than NDD. Look for it in version 4.50 of Norton Utilities.

Yours, Morten.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:25:00 CST
From:         "ATDECC::KRAUS" <KRAUS%ATDECC.decnet@WIZ.MKE.AB.COM>
Subject:      Re: No WINDOWS NT for us

> I can completely agree. The same applies to OS/2 Ver. 2.0...
> These are Operating systems, that would work _ONLY_ with acceptable
> performance that would work fine on RISC-Systems, but not for game
> computers like INTEL-PCs... :-(
> A suggestion:
> let MS and IBM compile these Operating systems for RISC...
>
> Greetings:
> Jan
>
> --
> Jan K. Remke, Postfach 304041, W-1000 Berlin 30, Tel. auf Anfrage...
> remke@cs.tu-berlin.de / remke@nostromo.sub.org (Planet Earth sytems)
> ~\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/~
> Jesus loves you - Problems remaining: Worldwide Terrorism on Earth !


	I agree that Windows NT operating system needs high-performace HW, but
I don't understand, why "performance can work fine on RISC-Systems ...".

And here is my suggestion:
It is sometimes quite good to try to get more information on the problem than to
criticise anybody's work and ideas ...

						Karel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:38:49 -0700
From:         Ken Shaw <kens@CATSEQ.CATLIN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Unique Data in a DLL

On Mon, 23 Nov 1992, (Ralph A. Daniels) wrote:

> I need to have DLL's to keep data on a per instance bases.  Not shared
> between instances.  Any clues on how this can be done?
>

You might try a linked list of classes or structs which contain both
the data you want to keep and the task handle (from GetCurrentTask()) of
the program which that data relates to.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Resent-Organization: IUPUI Student Activities Office (317) 274-3931
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:37:59 EST
Comments:     Resent-From: NATHAN BRINDLE <NBRINDLE@INDYCMS>
Comments:     Originally-From: Stephen Jackson
              <kgbpyr!stephen@CSUFRES.CSUFRESNO.EDU>
From:         "NATHAN BRINDLE" <NBRINDLE@INDYCMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Next Version of Windows for DOS

>Blake,
>
>Thanks for all of your information.  I know this has been a frustrating
>thread for you, but us developers in the hinterlands appreciate
>the roadmap of where Microsoft is taking us.
>
>I wish that I worked with the companies that have quit buying 386's afn
>only buy 486 level processors.  I just recently was able to convince
>my company, and some others that I work with, that they should consider
>getting 386DX's rather than SX's.
>
>        Stephen Jackson
>        stephen@kgbpyr.portal.com

Huh!  You have SXs?  Man are you lucky!  I am the proud "owner" of the
only 386DX in the office!  There are two 386SXs that the two other "power
users" in the office use, then two 286-12s that two others use, and then
there are the *shudder* two XTs...one of which is unfortunately my network
link, since we don't have the budget to hook us all up TCP/IP...I have to
put up with this @%$#! SNA/IRMA link!  Thankfully we <may> have persuaded
the muckety-mucks to order us 486s in the future.  But a LAN is only a
dream.  Someone said the other day that academia is always last to upgrade
and that is entirely (and unfortunately) true.  :(

PS I might add that it was like pulling teeth to convince the assoc dean
that we needed a DX with an 80mb hard drive....and asking for the package
with the 160mb drive was completely out of the question.  Go figure.  :)

-----------------------------------------------------BITNET:  NBRINDLE@INDYCMS
Nathan C. Brindle, Student Activities Office
Staff Advisor, ALPHA PHI OMEGA, TAU OMICRON CHAPTER
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis
Internet:  NBRINDLE@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU
                                     * * *
                       DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR PEROT.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:05:40 EST
From:         "(Joseph T. Malloy)" <jmalloy@ITSMAIL1.HAMILTON.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Unable to Ctrl-Alt-Del
              19, 92 4:24 pm

> When I got my new ALR, I installed Word Perfect 5.1 for DOS shortly
> afterwords.  I went in and got everything set the way I wanted it.
> The next day when I rebooted my computer, WP was NOT THERE!  I reinstalled
> and everything went great.  On three or four other occasions however
> I experienced something similar.  MOST of the time I lost files after
> creating a new file, and then attempting to do a soft reboot.  For some
> reason Ctrl-Alt-Del would not respond.  When I hard rebooted and came
> back, my files were not there!
>
> The ALR was a temporary machine...I used it for a couple months while
> waiting on my new Compaq Prolinea 4/33, which I set up today.  I was
> messing around with the Config.sys just now, and went to soft boot to
> pick up my changes.  When I tried, it would not accept the Ctrl-Alt-Del!
> When I went back in after a hard reboot, my changes to my Config.sys were
> not there, and a file that I had created just before that edit was also
> gone!  It seemed to happen more often on my ALR on days when I had been
> using Windows.  I had never had this happen on a similarly configured
> ALR using Windows 3.0...Only 3.1.
>
> HELP!!! I am at a state where I am paranoid to do anything on my machine,
> because even when I save things correctly, the changes may be gone!
>
Sounds to me like you've perhaps got SMARTDRV.EXE loaded with delayed
writes enabled, although SMARTDRV is supposed to trap a ctrl/alt/del
keypress and flush the cache to disk before re-booting (indeed, I've
seen this happen on my machine after trying to re-boot too quickly after
writing a large file to disk/cache: a little message pops up in the
upper left hand corner of the screen essentially telling me to wait a
sec before the reboot...).  There are commands to flush a delayed-write
cache (for SMARTDRV I think you type SMARTDRV /c at a dos prompt).  You
can also set up every cache I know of to do read caching only, so you
might want to look into this...

Good luck!

Joe
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
>
From: AUASW@ASUACAD.BITNET (Andrew S. Wainwright)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Subject: ARGGGGGHHHHHH
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:21:40 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Help, I keep trying to log off this list, I have tried 3 times now, and
I am still getting tons of mail per day.  Since I only get to check my mail
every couple of days anyway, it gets to be a major task to sift through
the mail to find everything that I need.

Please (if the list operater reads this) log me off this list.

Thank you,

Sincerely,
Andrew S. Wainwright


Andrew S. Wainwright  INTERNET:  <AUASW@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
   (602) 837-7242     IP:        <AUASW@129.219.10.24>
        N7VVO         BITNET:    <AUASW@ASUACAD.INRE.ASU.EDU>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:19:30 GMTST
From:         lenko@TIGRIS.KLTE.HU
Subject:      RE: 16 color 800x600 Stealth

Try supervga.drv , which is included in the Windows 3.1 package
Zsolt.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:39:00 CST
Comments:     In-Reply-To: note of Tue,
              17 Nov 1992 09:03:31 EST from "D. Maddox"
From:         K119GG@TAMVM1.BITNET
Subject: Re: selling stuff on list

From:   George G Galdiano
An internet committee is looking into adding security measures on the
internet. Why? So companies will feel safer selling goods and services over
the internet.

We download transcripts from a BBS then upload them to the mainframe. We
wanted to go mainframe to mainframe, but for security measures, we could not.
The company, a subsidiary of GTE, said they are looking into beefing up
internet security on their end and then told me about the internet committee.
They guy I talked to said nothing but security was preventing them from doing
business over the internet now (we BUY the transcripts) except security.

If the information I got was correct, there doesn't seem to be any rule about
"commerical ventures" on the internet. Though it could be argued you are not
making money selling your used software, merely recouping losses.

However, since this topic doesn't deal with windows directly, I will attempt
to not discuss it anymore over the net.

                George G Galdiano
                Programmer/Analyst I
                CSC SIMS
                Phone: (409)845-3064
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: WIN3-L@UICVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"WIN3-L@UICVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 10:05:00 PDT
From:         BARKER@GONZAGA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The Next Version of Windows for DOS

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 10:14:30 -0700
From: Mike Lieberman <cwmliebe@ANTELOPE.WCC.EDU>

On Sun, 15 Nov 1992, Mike Lieberman wrote:

>Sorry Blake but it ain't so.  WFW is a set of extensions not a new
>product.  These extensions can be found in Windows NT as well as a WFW
>extension offering for Win 3.1. It will also be incorporated into Win 32
>for DOS when it is released.

>Blake! I never discussed Win32s in the previous message, so don't know
>where you came up with that.

>Win 32 for DOS will be a 32-bit version of Windows sharing the
>multithreading 23-bit libraraies with Windows NT.  It will provide native
>capabilities to run NT code on a DOS machine, so long as that machine is a
>80386 or better. It will be the logical migration path for most users who
>are not going to NT.  Excluded from Win 32 for DOS will be standard mode.

>Microsoft has not said that it would support all 32-bit functions without
>Win 32 and they won't.  The DOS versions that support full 32-bit code
>will be Win 32 for DOS.

>To suggest that all will co-exist easily in the future is simply without
>foundation. The Intel/Microsoft experience has been one of downward
>compatibility NOT upward compatibility and that isn't going to change this
>time either.

Mike, WFW is an extension of Windows for DOS 3.1, however, Blake is
correct in his assertion that Microsoft's stated position is that all
three products (i.e. WFW, Windows for DOS, and Windows NT) represent a
"family" of operating environments meant to give the user an unified
interface.  They are intended co-exist easily.  Windows for DOS is
intended for those that do most of their work independently, while WFW is
meant for those in workgroup situations and NT for those "power users."

Now about "Win 32 for DOS."  Recently, Microsoft has been indicating that
it would not provide complete 32 bit support for the next version of
Windows for DOS (Win 3.x).  This is further evidenced by their decision
not to support 32 bit processing in DOS 6.0.  Mike Maples, I believe,
argues that it would be unproductive to provide complete 32 bit support in
Win 3.x because of the hardware requirements, that's why Microsoft has NT.

Although this thread on 32 bit processing is interesting, it misses my
original inquiry, which was -- how much will Microsoft change the
interface in Win 3.x given that NT is now scheduled for delivery shortly
before Win 3.x (i.e. late next year).  If Microsoft stays with its stated
position to keep all three operating environments uniform in appearance,
can we expect Program Manager and File Manager to remain about the same?
How about a button bar in the Win 3.x File Manager (seems likely given the
File Manager in WFW)?

As a textbook author, these concerns are more of interest to me than what
lies under the hood.

Don
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"WIN3-L%UICVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: CMCGREW
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:44:50 -0500
From:         CMCGREW@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU
Subject:      Re: Windows vs. OS/2

I wasn't here when the big discussion took place; but, if anyone is
interested, OS/2 is now running Windows 3.1 software and it now has a
new 32bit graphic interface.  Both are part of IBM's service pack
concept and they are basically beta copies; but, they are reputed to
operate quite well.  There are lots of differences between OS/2 and
Windows and there are quite a few similarities too.  I have been taking
a second look at both systems.  I'm currently a Windows user and I am
considering moving to OS/2 and still running most of my Windows pgms.

I would like to hknow the concensus of the discussions too.  Does anybody
know the date-range when this occured?  If so, I'll check the log files
on the listserver.

Thanks,
Charles McGrew
Office of Institutional Research and Planning
University of Massachusetts
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:07:58 EST
From:         Mehul Randery <MRANDERY@UVMVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Win Login

I am currently administering a Lantastic 4.1 network over 7 workstations/server
All the users run local copies of Windows but can use any workstation.

Will Winlogin let me keep different setups / desktops for different users
on the network not depending from where they login?

Is there any other program that will let me keep the setups/desktops in a
shared directory but run local copies of windows 3.1 ?  (Shared copies run too
slowly)

Any help will be appreciated.  Shareware or commercial programs are okay,
though shareware is obviously preffered.
Thanks

Mehul  MRANDERY@UVMVM   or   randery@emily.emba.uvm.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <CLAUDE@BROWNVM.brown.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:00:22 EST
From:         Claude Goldman <CLAUDE@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: .ZIP files on WUARCHIVE

Lastest non beta version is PKZIP 1.10.   That maybe your problem.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU