HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:25:13 EDT
From:         Joseph Malloy <jmalloy@ITSMAIL1.HAMILTON.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Secret Screen, will it end ???!
              BLUHM" at Sep 2, 92 12:26 pm

Re: "Secret screen"/easter egg in Win 3.x et al.
> >
> I find it interesting that you take this stand.  Were I to come to your house
> and swipe several K of your disk you would be outraged.  What is the
> difference between that and doing it with a program.  The same can be said of
> people who find great delight in planting viruses, Trojan horses etc in
> programs to destroy your data and mine.  I find your logic flawed and
> inconsistent.
>
> As for Mr Gates,  he has lost control over his own company if he allows such
> activity to occur.  If he has allowed this to occur, I will switch to OS2 V***
> despite my revulsion at I**.  Any way, I prefer DR DOS 6.0 to Messy Dos ????.
>
> Lastly, you seem to take this discourse as a personal attack on your freedom
> of expression.  I must remind you that your freedom only extends to the point
> it intrudes on my freedom or some else's freedom.  This is becoming a
> constitutional issue now.
>
> George P. Bluhm Jr.
>
> Flame on!!!!!??????
>
No flame; you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I hope I speak
in accord with the majority of users who *enjoy* these little hidden
treasures.  If humans lose both the sense of humor this secret screen
suggests as well as pride in the work they've done, then we might as
well all give up -- life ain't going to worth much if you never laugh.
I suspect the the RAM and hard drive disk space used for such things is
rather minimal and I certainly hope software developers continue such
practices (ok, maybe they shouldn't get out of hand with 1024x768x32k
color bitmaps and so on!).

The Procomm Plus for Windows hidden screen is cute too (if anyone's
interested, I'll try to locate the instructions to bring it up...).

Joe Malloy
jmalloy@hamilton.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:28:39 MDT
From:         "Ian P. Mitchell" <22016@UCDASVM1.ADMIN.UCALGARY.CA>
Subject:      Re: comp.os.ms-windows FAQ: WinHelp format, 1/3

From:    Ian P. Mitchell
*** Resending note of 92-09-04 09:31

>I have tried all kinds of machinations, but, our uudecode insists that
>the is "no end line".  Our U*ix people here really don't keep up with
>the levels of software well.

Have you tried replacing the blank line before the 'end' line
with a single back quote - many UUdecoders require that.

i.e. the last four lines should look like:

M....................
K.................
`
end

Ian

PS My UUdecode gave me a lot of "errors" due to 'short lines' - usually on
lines with many trailing blanks.  To fix, just add any character *after*
the normal end of line e.g.

..
MKJHSKJHSKJHSKHSKHKSKHKSKH*&****&*&**&
M                                             M<---- add this
M&**&***&*(*&(&(*&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(
..

PPS It's worth the effort. It's a very nice looking document.
Thank you Tom.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <gep@oclc.org>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:54:26 EDT
From:         "Glenn E. Patton" <gep@OCLC.ORG>
Subject:      More secrets

Now that we've left the "secret screens" behind, I wonder how many folks
have read the article in yesterday's _Wall Street Journal_ (Sept. 1, 1992,
p. B1) about the book _Undocumented Windows_ and its revelations of
Windows "calls" that Microsoft hasn't documented?  Any one seen the book?


     Glenn Patton                           Internet: gep@rsch.oclc.org
     Online Computer Library Center
     6565 Frantz Rd, Dublin OH  43017       Phone:    (614) 764-6371
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:17:27 EDT
From:         "Harry Yeatts" <HYEATTS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Win31 Swapfile probs
              28 Aug 1992 14:29:01 WST from <ascott@GU.UWA.EDU.AU>

On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:29:01 WST Andrew Scott said:
>...It claimed that a permanent swapfile was  not possible due
>to the disk partitioning (only 1 partition, DOS 5) so I had to set up a
>temporary swapfile. How can I force it to make a permanent one.. or was
>there something that I did wrong? Thanks..

Andrew, I don't think it was anything you did wrong. Several months ago
I tried to create a permanent swapfile on my home machine (a 486/25 with
a 150 mg ESDI hard drive). It gave me the same message you received. Since
I had my drive partitioned (by FDISK) 100/50, I thought that must be the
problem. I then borrowed a tape backup machine, backed up my drive,
repartitioned the disk (leaving it as a single partition), and restored
my files.

All went well and I was excited about adding a permanent swapfile (I had
installed one on my office machine [386/33 105 mg IDE] and I had noticed
a nice improvement.). HOWEVER, when I tried to create the swapfile,
I GOT THE SAME D*M* MESSAGE.

I called Microsoft and they gave me a couple of suggestions (Like: defrag...
which I had already done) but nothing worked. They then said it was
"probably a hardware problem." Now THAT was a surprise ;)

Anyway, that is my tale of woe. I'm still using the temporary and have
learned to live with another small disadvantage.

If you figure it out, let me know. If not, at least I know that I'm not
the only one with such a problem ("hardware" or otherwise).

Cheers

Harry Yeatts (HYEATTS)                INTERNET: VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
Virginia Tech                         BITNET: VTVM1
Blacksburg, Virginia                  PHONE: 703-231-5141
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:26:08 GMT
From:         Bob Kane <bob@WORMS-EMH2.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Oh no not again!

>Message-ID:  <9209031106.aa10597@WHARF.BRL.MIL>
>
>.flame on
>
>Why can't people just change the record?
>
>Everytime I log on I have to sift through loads of 'junk' mail regarding
>the Windows 3.1 Secret Screen.  Now, someone's even started another one
>off with the Procomm Plus screen.
>
>Why not all join the new USENET group 'alt.comp.secret-screens' :)
>
>Can't we just drop the subject and get on with more serious topics!
>
>.flame off
>
>Sorry for the waste of bandwidth.

Andy,

Perhaps someone will volunteer to be the Secret Screen message reader.  Post
all Secret Screen stuff to them.  Once a month they can send out a Secret
Screen FAQ.  This way there will only be one message to delete.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kane                   Internet: bob@worms-emh2.army.mil (IP 134.235.9.2)
TechDyn Systems               Voice: (049) 6241-75936   (WORMS, GERMANY)
CMR 421, BOX 706                Fax: (049) 6241-74530
APO AE 09056                    CIS: 71054,2661
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:38:00 EDT
From:         YEE-TAK FUNG <fung@CCF4.NRL.NAVY.MIL>
Subject:      Stacker & QEMM
X-To:         win3-l <win3-l%uicvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu>

	I have recently installed Stacker 2.0 to my 386-25 4MB system with
QEMM 6.02 as memory manager.  The basic memory is now down from 633K to 531K.
I tried to optimize the system but failed to make OPTIMIZE work.  According to
the instruction from Stacker 2.0, we need to unSSWAP the C (boot drive) and E
(stacked drive) before running OPTIMIZE and to reSSWAP back after running
OPTIMIZE.  The reason given is that OPTIMIZE will look into drive C for the
CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT which are now swapped to drive E.  I tried
yesterday the whole day but failed to make it work.  Can any one tell me how
I can optimize the system for more basic memory ?
	Also I would like to know how to unstack a stacked drive.
						Tak Fung
						202-767-1021
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:28:03 GMT
From:         DUNPHY <DUNPHE91@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: question on designing reboot routine for Win 3.1
              28 Aug 1992 08:47:00 CDT from <BBHULSEY@LIFE.UAMS.EDU>

On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:47:00 CDT Wile E. Coyote said:
>
>Greetings!
>
>Vince writes:
>
>>While we're on the subject of reboot, does anyone know of a way to
>>modify Windows 3.1 so that it *will not allow* the option of rebooting
>>the machine via Ctl-Alt-Del?  What I'm interested in is protecting my PC
>>from a reboot while the keyboard is locked through a passworded
>>screensaver.
>
get a bios with password facility (american megatrends do one )

Name:        Seamus Dunphy, B.Sc.Eng., M.Eng.Sc.
Institute:   University College Dublin
Research:    Power Electronics Circuit Simulation
e-mail:      DUNPHE91@IRLEARN.UCD.IE or seamus@nebula.ucd.ie
phone:       + 353 (1) 7061913
fax:         + 353 (1) 2830921
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:52:26 EDT
From:         "James M. Ceravolo" <ceravolo@ICARUS.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
Subject:      Word Processing Advice

>I am trying to decided between AMI PRO 3.0 and MS WORD for Windows. I will be
>using it to write research papers, thesis and the like for my Graduate
>classes.

  I'd also like to hear some opinions on these two word processors.  I know
one thing, WordPerfect for Windows is out.  I have it and am not happy at all.
It's got some quirks that are pretty annoying.

Jim C.
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-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:50:40 -0400
From:         Gregg Pentecost X6228 IC44 <PENTECOST@BROOK.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Programing

>    I am just programing under windows using BC++ 3.0 , it is quite hard since
> there is not doc about the windows API. As they say, it is on line with the
> help. But it is slower than having a good book and hard to find the right
> API. Is there some enhancement with BC++3.1, or is it time now to migrate
> to MSC 7.0?.

Dominique,

The First Looks section of PC Magazine (dare I give a date) dated
Sept. 15, 1992 has a good article about 3.1  The main points were
dramatic performance improvements, smaller executables, good Windows
support and "printed documentation for the APIs is now included..."
Their conclusion was that for 39.95, you should upgrade.

Gregg.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  WIN3
Original_cc:  IN%"0005425788@mcimail.com", IN%"PCTECH-L@TREARN. BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:21:00 EDT
From:         Michael Gordon <GORDONM@DENISON.BITNET>
Subject:      S3 advice (LB or card?)

I would appreciate advice on the following:
I'm in the process of purchasing a 486DX-33. I'm always in Windows, so I want
to speed up the graphics processing. My local vendor is offering me two
configurations at approximately the same price. The first is with the Diamond
Stealth video card, which uses the S3 chip. The second is with a Local Bus,
also using the S3 chip.

And thoughts on which option I should select?

Replies directed to me will be summarized for the list(s).


Michael D. Gordon
gordonM@cc.denison.edu
Date sent:  28-AUG-1992 11:21:20
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:36:15 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Secret Screen
              31 Aug 1992 20:33:23 GMT from <gb03@NS1.CC.LEHIGH. EDU>

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:33:23 GMT GEORGE PHILIP BLUHM said:
>If you insist on stealing my disc space with extraneous code and writing
>unwanted files to my disk.  Say so on your #$%!@&^%^$# package so I do not have
>to put up with your pea brained ideas of cute and lack of ability to program
>effectively.

Interesting attitude.  Let us hope you apply the same standards to your
work habits and waste absolutely no disk space for your employer, have
absolutely nothing personal on the computer, exchanges of pleasantries
via email and waste 0% of the time you are on the clock.

How you play is just as important as how you work.  I'm betting the
resources used by such back doors are negligible and I'm sure no
commercial product is 100% efficient.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:         UK.AC.LEICP;  2 SEP 92  9:59:13 BST
X-Mailer:    ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:57:43 BST
From:         Andy Humberston <iah@LEICP.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Windows 4

FARAGHER@EARN.MSCD wrote........
>
> Has anybody heard anything about Windows 4?  All the discussion seems to be
> centered around NT.........Mike Faragher
>

I read in a mag. over the weekend that Rel. 4 was not really expected to
be released until 1994/1995.

NT seems to be the way forward at the mo.

Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:55:17 CST
From:         Rob <C08926RC@WUVMD.BITNET>
Subject:      VisualBasic/ObjectVision: Reviews?

Are there any ftp-able product reviews of VisualBasic and/or
ObjectVision?

Thanks in advance!


Rob Caton
C08926RC@WUVMD
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:01:48 EDT
From:         "Patrick Black" <pbb@HANOVER-CRREL.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:      Placement of text in Dialog
X-To:         WINDOWS List <WIN3-L@uicvm.uic.edu>

	I have created a dialog box containing 3 data
	entry boxes.  The initial values for the boxes
	are set with a transfer buffer using:

		stpcpy(TransferData.xval,"1.23");
		stpcpy(TransferData.yval,"2.34");
		stpcpy(TransferData.zval,"3.56");


	The problem is that when the dialog box is called
	from the main window, the inital values are truncated.
	It shows:

		1.23
		.34
		56

	What am I doing wrong?  The box width holds 7 characters
	and I declared each char of TransferData to be 7.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:53:51 EDT
From:         Jeffrey R Kell <JEFF@UTCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Secret Screen
              2 Sep 1992 08:43:52 GMT from <ibacon@UNIWA.UWA.EDU.AU>

On Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:43:52 GMT Ian Bacon said:
>One point not mentioned so far is that there are two different men
>introducing the Win 3.1 team. The first time the team is displayed a
>clean shaven man presents them. The second time a beared man. This swap
>continues with each display.

This keeps on ad nauseum.  There is also a bear (!) later.
From: rhughes@UCSD (Richard J. Hughes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Subject: Re: WinSpeed
Date: 31 Aug 1992 18:40:21 GMT
Organization: ucsd.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sombsb224.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Aug31.054909.13838@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> skcgoh@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Shaw Goh) writes:

>I'm just trying out WinSpeed.  Has anyone heard of it?  I've got a
>Trident 1Meg card.  I know that the version is for Windows 3.0 (I'm
>using 3.1) but it worked fine.  The question is, IS IT ANY FASTER???
>Honestly, I can't see the speed difference, but the money I paid for it
>must've been worth something!!  Has anyone got any comment at all??

Yes, return it and get your money back.  It's no faster than any other 
drivers optimized for Windows 3.1.  At least it was no faster than Orchid's 
own driver for the Pro Designer IIs or ATI's drivers for the VGA Wonder.

Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Phone:     DSN/AV: 570-9166   COMM: (717) 267-9166
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:43:55 EDT
Reply-To:     tharriso@cbg-99sima.army.mil
From:         Tom Harrison <tharriso@CBG-99SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Secret to running Win 3.0 in 386 enhanced mode
X-To:         Microsoft Windows Version 3 Forum
              <WIN3-L%UICVM.BITNET@pucc.princeton.edu>

FOR:  Marc Behr
      VAX Manager
      Harris Corporation
      Melbourne FL
      (407) 984-5571

      INET: mbehr@jaguar.ess.harris.com

I believe that you may find that you will have to increase  memory  to  at
least  4  meg  in  order  to have Windows work in enhanced mode.  I do not
believe that 2 Meg memory offers adequate space for the enhanced  mode  of
Windows  to  function  properly.  I had similiar problems on my 386 system
until I increased memory to 4 meg and, simultaneously, installed  the  3.1
Windows  upgrade.  Not  sure  which resolved the problem but I suspect the
critical point was the additional memory.  All now appears to work fine in
enhanced mode.

HTH.

   /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
   |  Tom Harrison                ||  USAMC SIMA                  |
   |  UNIX Team Leader            ||  ATTN: AMXSI-TLB             |
   |  DSN/AV:     570-9166        ||  Chambersburg, PA 17201-4180 |
   |  COMMERCIAL: 717-267-9166    ||                              |
   |  FAX:        717-267-9297    ||                              |
   |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
   |  Primary E Mail Address:   tharriso@cbg-99sima.army.mil      |
   \  Secondary E Mail Address: tharriso@letterkenn-emh1.army.mil /
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


>I recently purchased a 386DX-33 with 2 megs of ram that came with Win 3.0 and I
>don't seem to be able to get it to work in the 386 enhanced mode.
>
>It seems to come up in real mode if I just type "win" and will run in standard
>mode if I type "win/s". But when I type "win/3", the logo screen appears,
>disappears, the disk is accessed a lot, and finally I am left with a blank
>screen. At this point the only thing I can do is reboot.
>
>Any suggestions on what to look for, setup or change to use the enhanced mode?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Marc Behr
>VAX Manager
>Harris Corporation
>Melbourne FL
>(407) 984-5571
>
>INET: mbehr@jaguar.ess.harris.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Autoforwarded: false
Content-type: TEXT
Importance: normal
Priority: non-urgent
UA-content-id: 1168D5602500
X-Hop-count: 1
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mrgate.uwyo.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:39:00 MDT
From:         LSHIV <LSHIV@CORRAL.UWYO.EDU>
Subject:      MOUSE ON WRONG COM
X-To:         WIN3-L%UICVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU

       I am trying to upgrade from WINDOWS3.0 to WINDOWS3.1, both are from
Z-NIX.  I am using a Logitech mouse, on com1.  The problem is that when I use
WINDOWS3.1, the mouse is always intalled on com2, and therefor I cannot use my
mouse.  I have tried just about everything, and I even reinstalled 3.1 to try
to get a different driver.  Can someone please give me some advice, I would
really like to be able to use WIN3.1.
Thanks

LSHIV@CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:42:11 -0400
From:         Richard Reiner <rreiner@NEXUS.YORKU.CA>
Subject:      Re: WinSpeed

In his message of 14:40 Aug 31 1992, Richard J Hughes writes:

> Yes, return it and get your money back.  It's no faster than any other
> drivers optimized for Windows 3.1.  At least it was no faster than Orchid's
> own driver for the Pro Designer IIs or ATI's drivers for the VGA Wonder.

I agree.

The current 1.02 release WinSpeed drivers are a full 30% *SLOWER* than
the current (4/92) ET4000 ET4Turbo drivers from Tseng, and also
marginally slower than the plain (non-ET4Turbo) Tseng 4/92 drivers.

WinTach "Overall" results, on my 386-33:

                Tseng 4/92      Tseng ET4TURBO 4/92     WinSpeed 1.02
1024x768-256    3.85            4.67                    3.57
 800x600-256    3.07            3.58                    2.90

Numbers from WinBench are consistent with these results.

Of course, this applies only to Tseng ET4000-based cards.


--
Richard Reiner........rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca........416-538-3947

Learning, n.  The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious.
  -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
From: pmh2962@zeus.tamu.edu (Pat Hayes)
Subject: FOGHORN? (was: Re: Re: SoundBlaster 1.5 and Pro...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Department of Meteorology, TAMU
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:50:00 GMT

In article <9208260154.AA01521@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au>
..
>>      My  friend is buying a SoundBlaster. He asked me if  he
>> should  buy  a  SoundBlaster 1.5 or  SoundBlaster  Pro?  The
>> difference for him is $80.
>>                                    Alexander Serge
>> aqs9785@acfcluster.nyu.edu
>I find it unlikely that the basic SB will not be supported under future
>software releases (eg. Windows), as it would cut out a big slice of the
>market.. how many things are Ad Lib compatible??! So if you've got the
..
>denominator.. but this is all just my opinion.
>Andrew Scott
>Internet: ascott@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
---------------------
Anybody hear when Microsoft's new soundboard is coming out?  Supposed
to be better than SB and AL, but will run *some* apps written for
SB and AL, but not others.  "FOGHORN", I think its called. Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Pat Hayes, Meteorology  INT: pmh@tamu.edu  BIT: pmh2962@tamzeus !whoop --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"WIN3-L%UICVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:47:00 CDT
From:         "Wile E. Coyote" <BBHULSEY@LIFE.UAMS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: question on designing reboot routine for Win 3.1
X-To:         WIN3-L%UICVM.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU

Greetings!

Vince writes:

>While we're on the subject of reboot, does anyone know of a way to
>modify Windows 3.1 so that it *will not allow* the option of rebooting
>the machine via Ctl-Alt-Del?  What I'm interested in is protecting my PC
>from a reboot while the keyboard is locked through a passworded
>screensaver.

I take it you've already glued the power switch in the 'on' position and
welded the power cable in place?  ;-)

.......
:  o/ : Bruce Hulsey
: <|  : Univ. of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
: / > : internet: bbhulsey@life.uams.edu
:.....: bitnet:   bbhulsey@uams
From: carter@cemvax.cem.msu.edu (Tom Carter)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.win3-l
Subject: Re: WinSpeed
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:37:22 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University, East Lansing Michigan

In article <WIN3-L%92090113491807@UICVM.BITNET> CFARMER1@UA1VM.BITNET (Chet Farmer, Asst. Dir., Project IDEALS) writes:
>All this talk of unpredictable results from Winspeed has lead me to one
>conclusion, and one conclusion only:
>
>Screw Winspeed; I'm getting an ATI Ultra.
>
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|  Chet Farmer, Assistant Director   |   English / 103 Morgan           |
>|  Project IDEALS -- FIPSE, DoE      |   Tuscaloosa, AL  35487-0244     |
>|  University of Alabama             |   tel 205-348-9494               |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|  "There's room in my boat for just about everyone" -- Raymond Carver  |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

You won't be sorry! <a :) customer>
============================================================================
|         Tom Carter                    |     carter@cemvax.cem.msu.edu    |
|   Michigan State University           |     carter@msucem.bitnet         |
|     Chemistry Department              |                                  |
============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU