HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro)
Subject: Re: more bugs in 3.1
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.122110.54509@cc.usu.edu> fahole@cc.usu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.145813.12588@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>> 
>> More bugs:
>> 
>> 1) a bad one: the clock appears to only run once, no multiple copies,
>>    and, far worse, you can't make it the active window by clicking
>>    just anywhere on it - you have to use the "move bar" area.
>>    Whoever at microsoft that did this, it was dumb.
>
>Not entirely a bug.  This was done on purpose, so that the clock will
>remember its spot on the screen, and can always be, on top (in the foreground
>of any win application, if you want.
>The trade off was that you can only open it once.  However, the 3.0 clock
>works fine in 3.1 and you may, if you want, run it as many times as you 
>want.
> 

But wait...it seems like _all_ my apps only allow one copy to run at a
time under 3.1.  This includes WordPerfect for Windows (though I think
it did this under 3.0 also), Wingz, MathCAD, and a few others, plus
all the applets I've tried.  The only exceptions I've found so far are
WinGIF 1.4 and anything in a DOS box.

I clearly recall running multiple sessions of Solitaire under 3.0, but
under 3.1, when I click on an icon, and that application is already
running, it just activates the app's window.

Was this behavior intentionally added by MS?  Is this an RTFM?

Paul



-- 
Paul Secinaro            | Synthetic Vision and Pattern Analysis Lab
pss1@kepler.unh.edu      | Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
p_secinaro@unhh.unh.edu  | University of New Hampshire
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Reply-To: prs9k@virginia.edu
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 14:45:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.132541.26604@engr.uark.edu> dch2@engr.uark.edu (David Hobbs) writes:
>Ok, I know I'll probably start a religious war on this one, but I just
>have to get some other opinions.  
>
>I've been reading the OS/2 newsgroups the last week where everyone is
>just ga-ga over 2.0.  IF (and the key here is IF) OS/2 will multitask
>DOS, Windows, and OS/2 Preemptively, why should anyone upgrade to Win 3.1?
>

Aye, there's the rub!  Marketing my friend, marketing.  What is really
interesting about the whole win/os2 debate is that no one has argued
that Windows 3.1 is TECHNICALLY better than OS/2, they would be crazy to
do so.  Microsoft and their supporters at the magazines have managed to
fill the air with so much FUD about OS/2 that despite its OBVIOUS
benefits to anyone using a 386/486 machine (with enough memory and a big
enough hard drive), people are being scared into sticking with what they
know and love.  Windows 3.1 is being hailed as the greatest thing
since sliced bread while OS/2 contends with headlines like "OS/2: But can
it compete?"  

>At the rollout at my local IBM yesterday, I saw the film at Comdex where
>IBM was running 3.1 in a OS/2Win along with DOS and other OS/2 programs.
>Reiswig(sp?) joked and said something to the effect of "Look what we've
>done just 24 hrs. after 3.1 was released..."
>
>The demo was impressive.  If for no other reason, why should anyone
>continue to run MS-Dos 5, DR-Dos 6, Windows, Qemm and Desqview, etc.
>when OS/2 can do them all in one time?  Plus, I can upgrade to it for
>$49 which is about 1/2 of what I can sell my copies of Dr-Dos, Qemm, and
>Desqview for.  Why shouldn't I?
>

By all means, you should!  You have answered your own question.  Go for
it.

But keep your DR-DOS and your MS-DOS handy since you can boot both of
them, side by side on the desktop in VDMs.  WHY you ask?  Because you
can, that's why!  But by all means, sell of Qemm, Desqview and Windows,
you won't be needing them anymore...

>Feel free to post, flame, email, etc.  I'm just looking for some opinions.
>
>Thanks,
>
>D.
>--
From: rob@rjck.UUCP (Robert J.C. Kyanko)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: VGA in a window...really???
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:05:59 GMT
Organization: RJK Enterprises, Orlando, FL

tnfx1@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:

> Has anyone actually gotten a VGA dos program to work in a window in 
> Win3.1 enh. mode???
> 
> If so fill me in on how to get it working...
> 
> Thanks...

This seems to work fine for me.  I'm not sure if it worked when using the
standard font size in the window however (not sure how/if this is related),
but when I went to a larger font for the dos box, I was able to bring up
VGA programs within the window!  They are somewhat slow, and appear to be
buffered -- delayed updates.

For reference I have a Paradise 8514/combo running in 1024x768x256 mode.

-----------
I am not responsible for anything I do or say -- I'm just an opinion.
             Robert J.C. Kyanko (rob@rjck.UUCP)
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: How about Paradise Drivers? (for those who care)
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:18:34 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

kxj6@po.CWRU.Edu (Kijin Jung) writes:

> Any word out there about Win 3.1 compatible Paradise 1024 (512K)
> drivers? (By Win 3.1 compatible, I mean mousable DOS windows and
> changing DOS window fonts.) Or has Western Digital abandoned this
> prehistoric card?
> 
> Does anyone have BBS numbers for WD?

Well my Paradise VGA Pro works fine and it is even older than the
1024. The number I have for the Paradise BBS is:
  Paradise BBS                    1-415-968-1834


(If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 install warnings
From: stefan@olson.acme.gen.nz (Stefan Olson)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 07:13:35   Y

bollard@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Lee M. Bollard) writes:

> I installed Windows 3.1 last night.  During installation I got two
> warning message screens:
> 
>      File: OLESVR.DLL
> I got the same message later for the file OLECLI.DLL.

These are the files for OLE, and 3.1 has latter versions than the ones
you'd have for Ami Pro 2.0, WFW 2.0 or Excel 3.0...

...Stefan
From: rocker@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: page fault
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:08:07 GMT
Organization: Wright State University


	Is anyone else getting a page fault error in there vudeo driver under
3.1?

	My bard is made by VMI and I'm running in SVGA mode.  I've been trying
to call their board, ut thei modem doesn't ike mine.

rock solid
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Subject: Re: NoS/2 shipping yet?
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:44:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.092620.16728@walter.cray.com> dre@cray.com (Dennis Ellis) writes:
>
>  Also, the latest PC Mag has an article discussing TrueType vs. Postscript.
>It does not at all prove that TrueType technology is better than ATM - just
>different. They both have their place (according to PC Mag).

	PC Magazine won't slag on Absolutely anything that has any relevance.
They continually say that their Columnists are "speaking their own mind", and
when doing reviews will only go as far as to say:

	You might want to look elsewhere for a better deal.

	The rest is so wishy washy and caters strictly to bigname companies 
(with big time advertising contracts...)

-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         C program run.  Run  
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA          Program run! PLEASE!
Ever wonder how Worf got to be Security Officer on the Enterprise when the 
Capt gets kidnapped from the bridge every two episodes and Troy Beats him up?
From: Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: WARNING: Excel 4.0 and Win 3.1
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 12:26:16 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

I ran into an interesting problem the other day, and thought I would bring
forth the problem and the solution. Here goes:

When I installed Win 3.1, I did so over 3.0a. No problem here.
When I installed Excel 4.0, I did so over 2.x (Can't remember ver)
When I ran Excel, I could not load any spreadsheets, even ones I made with 4.0

Nothing seemed to work to fix the problem. With the aid of MS Excel Tech Spt,
however, it boiled down to one thing: COMMDLG.DLL. When Win 3.1 is installed
over an existing version of Windows, it does not update this file in the
[insert directory here] directory. It places it in SYSTEM directory instead.
Excel 4.0 will not run with earlier versions (Mine was Aug 21, 1991) of this
DLL file.

Anyone else run into this situation?

Renee Roberts

P.S. When I copied COMMDLG.DLL from SYSTEM to [default], it worked fine.
From: deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org (David Deitch)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Ami Pro 2.0 w/win3.1
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:19:02 GMT
Organization: Galaxy Information System (GIS) 1:133/411 Atlanta, Ga

On Thu, 09/Apr/92 at 22:59, Mark Curtis said this to All:

 MC> Lotus called me back!  Now they admit there is a problem.  Hit the
 MC> ESC key to recover the cursor.

     Lotus WPD is about a block away from where I live.  For the last two 
years, they have been working in the middle of a construction mess for a 
highway extension.  They recently moved out of there to a more "stable" area 
and some degree of confusion resulting from the move and the release of Win 
3.1.  I give them credit for calling you back.  It shows that while their info 
retrieval is still being set up, their information recording and customer 
logging is excellent.

          David Deitch, (GIS) Atlanta
 

--  
----------------------------------------------------------
              __          David Deitch
             /  \         Computer Connection
            /|oo \        Galaxy Information System (GIS)
           (_|  /_)  (jm) FidoNet: 1:133/411
            _`@/_ \    _  UUCP: gatech!warlord!gisatl!deitch
           |     | \   \\ INTERNET: deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org
           | (*) |  \_  ))PHONE: 1-404-671-1039 (voice)
  ______   |__U__| /  \//        1-404-671-1024 (data)
 / FIDO \   _//|| _\   /  US MAIL: 6945B Roswell Rd, NE
(________) (_/(_|(____/            Atlanta, Ga. 30328-2326
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Win 3.1: Wanted: some *.wav files
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:19:45 GMT

Are there collections of sounds out that are convertable to *.wav
format?

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)
Subject: WinQVT 4.77 - Nothing happening
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:42:20 GMT

I've seen lots of post up here about WinQVT so I thought maybe someone 
here could help me with a problem I'm having.  I have it set up to run 
with my 2400 baud MNP modem with E-7-1 comm port settings both in Windows 
control panel and in WinQVT itself.  I also have a no flow control set as 
a parameter.  The result is that I either get no response from the modem 
(even before dialing) or when I do get a response and connect to the 
HP-UX host, Ijust get gobbledy-gook.  It seems like it should be a parity 
problem but I know the parity is set correctly (I use Telix with the same 
settings).

Any ideas or assistance much appreciated...

Paul

pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)
Western Business School  --  London, Ontario
From: jm@dhmoell.uucp (Joerg Moellenhoff)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Incompatiblity..
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:44:45 CES
Organization: Joerg Moellenhoff

> >This week's PC Week listed the following programs as "casualties" to
> >the Windows 3.1 upgrade.

>         I use at least 4-5 of these packages under the final RC Win 3.1 with
> absolutely no problems. I don't know what version or problems they
> experienced. Also, the Winsight problem is well known already by Borland and
> was their fault. They issued a patch way back at the beginning of Feburary fo
> free. During beta testing, Microsoft really wanted to know of *any and all*
> compatiblity problems with older apps. I don't know how much I'd trust PC Wee
> if they can't even apply a free patch.

Some people are writing a lot of sh.. and paper must hold it !



--
J"org M"ollenhoff
<jm%dhmoell@ovum.ka.sub.org> ----------- Punk's not dead, eh ! Use Windows...
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON)
Subject: Re: My opinion on 3.1
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:20:26 GMT

In article <11290@mindlink.bc.ca> Mike_Quigley@mindlink.bc.ca (Mike Quigley) writes:
>The first thing I did after installing the new Windows was run Telix, which
>I've been running in a Window with a PIF I made for weeks with no problems,
>multi-tasking with other programs simultaneously. Under 3.1 it works in the
>Window, but when I switch to full screen, the text disappears and all that is
>left are some junk characters where certain graphics like the borders are
>supposed to be (the program will still run in this state, though a lot of good
>that does me, when I can't see what's going on). That was just the beginning of
>nine hours of misery. I finally gave up, deleted the whole Windows directory
>and reinstalled 3.0. So far I am very disappointed in 3.1.
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If you're going to reply in E-mail, please don't quote my whole message back to me -- it costs me money!!! (so does this extra line)
>Mike Quigley, Vancouver, B.C., Canada             Mike_Quigley@mindlink.bc.ca

I would say that you've got a bad video driver. Look at the list in the
Win3.1 box, and the list in the latest PC Mag, they describe virtually
every video manufacturer and their intentions for upgrading drivers.
Also find out about MS's Windows Driver Library (they'll send you the
disk, or you can download individual drivers from Compuserve, GO WDL).
I've found Win3.1 to be much much better for running DOS apps in a
window than 3.0, I hope you can get it fixed.

- Brian

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky)
Subject: Re: Eggheads "Cue" WIN3.1 Offer
Organization: Vpnet Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1992 14:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.150253.26689@javelin.sim.es.com> bgeer@javelin.sim.es.com writes:
>
>So for all that you mention, how much does "Cue" cost?
>
>Why did you leave that info out?

    Because it's free!

Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:11875 comp.windows.misc:728
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Windows NT
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:30:56 GMT
Followup-To: comp.windows.ms
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

>In article <1992Mar31.033116.16208@descartes.waterloo.edu> jsmolnar@descartes.waterloo.edu writes:
>>
>>The following advantages are part of Windows NT (to be released by end 1992)

How secure is this release date? I mean 3.1 is very late compared to its release
date isn't it.

>>
>>1) 32 bit, pre-emptive multi-tasking, multi-threading, multi-processing
>>   (per thread) OS

In other words the same as OS/2 2.1. OS/2 2.0 has most of these today BTW.

>>2) Is OS/2, Win 16/32 bit, POSIX (1001.3), DOS compatibl

Is the OS/2 1.3 or OS/2 2.0 support. Are you sure about DOS compatibility,
I remeber to have read other things about DOS compatibility in Windows/NT.

>>3) Supports named pipes, anonymous pipes, shared memory, semaphores,
>>   mail slots, queues and other forms of inter-process communications

What is the advantage of this compared to DDE and OLE?

>>5) Is C2 level secure

Not impressed. Are they going to raise this in the future or is C2 the
limit.

>>6) Built in peer-to-peer networking

Like OS/2 2.0, better, worse?

>>7) Device independant colour module

Sounds slow. How are they going make this speedy.

>>8) Micro-kernal design

Great! (I mean that)

>>9) Memory mapped file i/o

Great!

>>10) Is a client-server design

Will it interact with X-windows (like DesqView/X)?

>>11) Portable to Intel, MIPS, DEC (Alpha) architectures 
>>    (50 K replace-able code...could go elsewhere)

How is this combined with the multi processing claim?

>12) Probably still requires that you buy the $1000 developer's kit so you can
>    have those wonderful libraries. 

What brings the question how expensive is NT itself?

Don't take me wrong. I like the design of NT and sure hope it is going to
be a succes (either as OS/2 3.0 of Windows/NT). But I am sceptical until
I see a public availabble program (bot just a beta). I have been sceptical
of OS/2 2.0 too but IBM had a pleasant surprize there. I can't get rid
of the impression the Windows marketing devision is using NT to hide the
fact that OS/2 2.0 is better than Windows 3.1 (at COMDEX OS/2 2.0 running
3.1 specific software has alreade been demonstrated BTW).


Nico de Vries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl
VOICE : +31-3404-24931
BBS   : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries)

IMPORT StdDisclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion;          - O   Place reserved for
Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please.    |    funny joke. Sugestions 
I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH.      \_/   apreciated.
From: john.will@satalink.com (John Will)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: MOUSE.SYS V8.20?
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:18:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: satalink.2591.1033.uupcb
Reply-To: john.will@satalink.com (John Will)
Organization: Satalink Info Systems - Huntingdon Valley, PA - 215-364-3324

TO: huang@maui.cs.ucla.edu
SH.mouse.sys v 8.20. So, I replaced my mouse.sys 8.10 w/ it. However,
  .the new one does not support /U which I can enforce the mouse.sys
  .8.10 put itself in high mem...

You are correct, apparently some folks had problems with 8.10 loaded
into the HMA, so that capability was removed in 8.20.
---
 . KingQWK 1.05 . XYZZY... Nothing happens.
From: belvin@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Appoint/address App. Suggestion
Date: 11 Apr 92 14:49:58 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University Computing Services

I am now using Sidekick 2.0 for my appointment calendar and address
book in a DOS window with Windows 3.0 and Norton Desktop 1.0.
I would like to move to a Windows application(s) for these purposes 
but I do not want to re-enter 500 telephone/address entries and far too
many appointments and todo items. I also need the functionality of Sidekick's
todo dates and priorities. Any suggestions as to best/better applications
for this. The Sidekick files are Paradox type so I can extract the data
to delineated files if another program can read them in that form.

Bob Belvin
Bitnet Belvin@zodiac.rutgers.edu
       
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: john@drd.com (John.Horeth)
Subject: Pagemaker 3.01 and MS-Win 3.1
Organization: DRD Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:01:22 GMT

Does Pagemaker 3.01 run under MS-Win 3.1?  


john@DRD.com             | John M. Horeth, II 
{uunet,rutgers}!drd!john | Horeth Programming Services, Inc. - (918)622-5594
                         | c/o DRD Corporation (918)743-3013
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jfsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gerald F Smith)
Subject: XVision on Win 3.1
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:05:02 GMT

	I installed Windows 3.1 on my 486 and my XVision stopped working. 
I am using XVision 4.0 and the current version of FTP inc's TCP/IP software.

	If anyone can help me, thanks. 


						Jerry Smith
				      jfsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu 
				          Sr Network Coordinator
				        Academic Computing Service
				          Ohio State University
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: :-)
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:09:43 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

In <1992Apr13.170655.8546@wam.umd.edu> pr@wam.umd.edu (Jesus M. Rodriguez) writes:




>	WINDOWS SUCKS!!!   Irritating isn't it!! Also Win 3.1 sucks too. :-)

Grow up please. Windows 3.1 is a great product with many capabilities and once
the Windows 3.1 support for OS/2 2.0 arives I might even use of them too :-)
I don't think this kind of posts is going to help anyone making any good
disisions BTW.

Nico
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.lang.c++
From: phils@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Phil Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Zortech Debugger and Windows 3.1
Organization: Symantec Corp.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:54:23 GMT

>>>>> On 8 Apr 92 01:58:35 GMT, bchen@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Benjamin Chen) said:

 > I've noticed people having trouble with turbo debugger for windows.
 > I can't even start my Zortech debugger for windows in 3.1, which
 > worked fine under 3.0.  I double click on the zdbw icon and nothing
 > happens except a little hard disk access.  Not even an error
 > message.  Ack.  Anyone else have this problem?

If you rename the file CVWIN.DLL to WINDEBUG.DLL, and put it where
zdbw can find it, the debugger will work just fine. The file CVWIN.DLL
comes with the Windows 3.1 SDK; it may also be available for ftp
someplace but I have no idea. I'm pretty sure the copy that comes with
MSC 7.0 will work OK.

	-phil
--
   Phil Shapiro                                   Software Engineer
   Language Products Group                     Symantec Corporation
		   Internet: phils@cs.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: grover@mighty-joe.isri.unlv.edu (Kevin Grover)
Subject: Re: TrueType Fonts not found
Reply-To: grover@isri.unlv.edu
Organization: Information Science Research Institute (UNLV-ISRI)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 02:08:52 GMT

In article <rich.702848047@gotland>, rich@island.COM (Rich Fanning) writes:
)
) I just installed Win 3.1, and have a problem with TrueType fonts (Arial, etc.)
) They appear to be installed correctly; they show up in the Control Panel Fonts
) list.
) 
) If I open Paintbrush, it finds Arial, Times New Roman, etc.  But none
) of my other apps can find them:  Windows Write and Word Perfect for Windows.
) 
) I could understand why WP Windows might not find them, but certainly
) Windows Write should.  Why does Paintbrush find them and Windows Write not?
) 
) I'm going to try reinstalling the fonts and see what happens.  Anyone
) else have this problem?


Yes. However, I had ATM 1.15 installed, and I assume that I
uninstalled in incorrectly -- didn't read the instructions first.
Still haven't corrected it  --- I've spending so much time fighting
upgrades in the last few weeks that I've gotten little work done.  If
you figure it out, I'd be interested.  BTW I get no fonts in Word for
Windows 2.0 either.  (I even tried it with the TT fonts disabled,
still nothing)  I might just reinstall ATM and leave it -- it's worked
beatifully so far.

-- 
  +----------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
  | Kevin O. Grover      | UNLV Computer Science and Electrical Engineering  |
  | grover@isri.unlv.edu | ISRI - Information Science Research Institute     |
  | CServe: [73627,1677] | 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas NV 89154-1017 |
  +----------------------+---------------------------------------------------+