HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Reply-To: dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:12:33 GMT


In a previous article, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) says:

[a long argument comparing OS/2 to a child with divorced parents deleted]

>>So what actually did happen?
>
>Would you believe me if I told you? ;)
>
>Let's just say it was an unfortunate disagreement
>in which both sides were responsable, but it was
>more the situation.

Why do you drop little comments on the sly and apply stretched 
analogies instead of comming out and presenting information?

Why did microsoft stop making OS/2 apps for their flag ship
applications?

Why did microsoft let os/2 development stall for 6-12 months
until IBM decided that they better start their own tean lest
the whole project dry up and blow away?

Why does microsoft employ negative advertising against os/2,
such as the windows apps time test?

Why is Steve Balmer so antagonistic towards OS/2?

The only answer I can see is that a decision was made at the highest
levels in microsoft to abandon the product.

Why can't you just say that microsoft abandonded OS/2?
Is it some mental block that you have?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1992Aug07.192831.17275@microsoft.com>
	<1992Aug11.011810.14276@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
	<1992Aug11.180931.19371@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:00:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.180931.19371@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

 > BALK!!!!
 > Just for fairness, I'm going to alter this a bit.

 > Hardware -> BIOS -> Device Drivers -> MAIN OS -> app

Hmm... as I recall, OS/2 1.x could use (but did not require) the ABIOS
("A" for advanced?)  which was available on PS/2's. If I recall
correctly, the ABIOS could operate in protected mode and not just in
real mode, which lessened the amount of mode-switching required. I'm not
positive if the ABIOS was made re-entrant or not.

Since OS/2 2.0 works on clones, I suspect that the correct diagram is:

Hardware --> Physical Device Drivers (--> Virtual Device Drivers) --> OS/2

The difference between physical and virtual device drivers are outlined
in the Red Books. Although it's not completely clear (the Red Books give
info about OS/2 2.0 implementation as opposed to philosophy, I'll have
to browse "The Design of OS/2 2.0" when I get time), I suspect that the
Virtual Device Drivers contain state information whereas the Physical
ones do not, therefore the latter are trivially re-entrant. Making the
Virtual ones re-entrant would not require any more work than normal.

--
Ping Huang (INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu), probably speaking for himself

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Number of users etc.
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:59:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.235913.22546@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
> In times past this has been true.  The 1,000,000 number however includes
> all copies SHIPPED that were not electronically distributed. 
> The number was first announced during the ZiffNet conference of IBM
> big wigs, and they were quite explicit that that number was for
> copies shipped, not actual sales, or number of users, etc.
> 
> >
> >Also interesting is the same for Windows 3.1. In this case (an maybe in
> >the OS/2 case) subtractions for "shelfware" might be needed.
> 
> Clearly the 1,000,000 number includes a fair bit of shelfware too...

The only shelfware "profiles" that I have come across are these:
 
"I tried to install it on my clone, but it just won't work"
(a tiny minority.......)

 
"I tried it on my 486/33 with 32 megs of ram and it ran slower that Lords of
Midnight on a 48K Spectrum!"
 
"I can't run Ultima VII, so what use is OS/2 anyway?"
 
"My Grometz/Furtlinger SCSI adpator (only 30 ever made!) won't work with
OS/2.......so I junked this deficient OS."
 
Otherwise, every copy I have sold is in active use. We sell one or two each
day.........we are looking for aps demand. Already, we have sold Lotus 123/G
V1.1 and MS Word for OS/2. 

> 
> >
> >And last but not least, is the number of NT betatesters (prerelease
> >users) known? 
> Microsoft just announced that 10,000 pre-release SDK's have been shipped.

Do they send these to people who plan to use them? Or do they just pump them
out to a mailing list? I get all sorts of guff coming across my desk from
vendors trying to get me on board with respect to their products.....
 
Steve



-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS Gave Up (Was Re: pc week and nt)
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:25:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <~1@byu.edu> earlyd@ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
>

< Stuff about divorce settlement deleted >

>You begin by stating MS didn't give up on OS/2, and then proceed to state(IMO)
>that MS did give up on OS/2.   What are you talking about?  Has MS come out with any new
>OS/2 apps? No.  Are there any plans to?  You'll have to answer that, but I think a new
>Windows app will arrive long before any OS/2 version.  I don't believe (no proof here)
>that MS plans to fully support OS/2 and in fact plans to combat its success.  Is that what
>you call 'not giving up'? 
>
>
>
>Look, to be honest, I don't care if MS gives up on OS/2.  Competition is good, as has
>been stated here before, but it seems to me you are trying to make it look like MS
>came out of the 'divorce' clean as a whistle (no fault) and that IBM is the slimey spouse.
>
>The complaint that MS dropped OS/2 is not a complaint about support or where 
>we can get it.  It has been used as an illustration of MS's (un)reliability in sticking 
>with their declared direction.  
>
>And incidentally, in your'divorce', you gave up the 'kid' very quickly.  I'm not sure
>you ever cared about the poor sun-of-a-gun very much.  ;^)
>
>Dave Early
>earlyd@wombat.ee.byu.edu

Okay, let me restate.  When folks on the net say that MS gave up OS/2, it
sounded to me like they were implying that MS abandoned OS/2.  This was
not the case.  MS gave custody of OS/2 to IBM.

No one came out of the divorce clean as a whistle, in fact there is still
legal garbage going on.  The fact that we have access to each others source,
for instance.

The blame lies on both parties, and the circumstances, not just on MS as
so many seem to think.

As for giving up the kid quickly, what do you mean.  Trying to fight over the
kid for a longer period of time would have caused serious emotional trauma.

BTW: please use <70 char lines next time, longer lines kinda makes it hard to
read.

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gilem@aix.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile)
Subject: Re: OS count, anyone?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:40:04 GMT

R.K. writes:
-------------
        There's GeoWorks, a small-scale Windows-like DOS extender.  Runs
better than Windows on slower machines.  Doesn't scale up as well, and
as far as I know only the original company can develop apps.
.
.
        Real-time multi-tasking OS'es mainly for vertical systems:
OS-9000, QNX, Flex-OS, iRMX.
------------

Sorry, but you have done an injustice to geoworks.  It IS a real
pre-emptive multitasking OS that runs on top of DOS.  It was out
LONG before OS/2, and is very fast (will even run respectably on
an XT)!  The only apps are unfoutunately proprietaary, but the 
cult following is anxiously awaiting the SDK, which is supposedly
coming out early next year.  One thing I will give them, this
is an excellent use for all of those 286/386 machines which are
going to be thrown away by all of us who are moving up in the 
os world to NT, OS/2, NextStep, Solaris, and need all the speed 
we can get

Mike G. .
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: NT a Desktop OS ? [was Re: superVGA (and misc top-blowing)]
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 13 Aug 1992 12:48 EST  

In article <1992Aug13.080540.17580@actrix.gen.nz>, 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes...
>In article <1992Aug12.125401.18428@hellgate.utah.edu> 
brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the next
>step for the desktop!

That's the one thing that I do not understand - the comparison of NT to 
OS/2 2.0 GA.  From everything that I have seen that has a resemblance to an 
official Microsoft position, NT is not a desktop operating system.  Which 
leads to two questions: why compare it to a desktop operating system and 
what is it (NT) intended to be?

With all the hype about NT, I wonder if there is anything that it can't do. 
I thought about one, but probably the next thing that I'll see are plans to 
port NT to a bidet.

A WAG regarding WIN 4.0 - could be a desktop version (or subset) of NT.

JD
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 12:15:48 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 2.0 apps (was: I've seen NT...)
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0
            <ak6m4qg.timbol@netcom.com>

In <ak6m4qg.timbol@netcom.com> Mike Timbol writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.163504.12284@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> rommel@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Kai-Uwe Rommel) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.123242.14212@wes.on.ca> tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
>>>So, can someone point out whether some of these are actually out now that
>>>we're halfway into the third quarter?  I'll list some of the ones I actually
>>>recognize from the 2Q92 list.  I've marked the ones I know are available
>>>with a '*' in the first column...  (Oh, and OS/2 1.x apps don't count!)
>>
>>Well, an OS/2 1.x app running on OS/2 2.0 is still far better than
>>running an Windows 3.x app on Windows 3.1 (or OS/2 2.0 WIN-OS2).
>>Example: Microsoft Excel 3.0 (they don't make a 4.0 for OS/2, obviously)
>>
>>Kai Uwe Rommel
>
>That's not the point though.  Excel 4.0 is better on Windows 3.1 than
>Excel 3.0 is on OS/2 2.0.  One reason not to count OS/2 1.x apps is because
>they are behind their current Windows counterparts.
I don't quite agree with you.

Firstly you would have to define what you mean by 'better' and 'behind'.
Even OS/2 1.x apps can have advantages over Win 3.1x apps, like
better multitasking, more robust, better performance, better
client/server/network support, etc.

Secondly, I thought this was just a checklist of applications.
The problem with most checklists is of course that it's difficult
to introduce 'grey' levels without making them unreadable.
So perhaps W3.1 with Excel4 should have 4 stars and OS/2 1.3
with Excel3 3 stars?

I guess I don't agree with the "OS/2 1.3 apps don't count" limitation.
Why not make it more general and say "all 16-bit apps don't count"? :-)
>
>- Mike
>

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jeffc@netcom.com (Jeff Cohen)
Subject: Re: What crash is a bad crash (was  Re: pc week and nt)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 01:56:27 GMT
Organization: Hacker's Anonymous
Distribution: comp

In article <1992Aug11.190655.27153@microsoft.com> craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:
>
>It's been a while since I played with the WPS, but arent the applications
>you run under the WPS children of the shell?  Aren't they killed when
>the shell dies? 
>
>Doesn't this mean I loose work when the shell dies?  I look at it as
>more of a binary thing:  If I don't loose work, I'm happy.  If I loose
>work I'm not happy.  I consider these arguments regarding how much of
>the system is crashing, specious.  Telling me that this box is better
>because the kernel keeps running, essentially "yes, you lost that six
>hours work, but look at this, your download of mandog.gif is still
>running" is bizarre.
>
>I can understand keeping applications away from one another, so that
>an app cannot kill the shell or other apps.  I can't understand this
>explaining away WPS crashes.  It doesn't matter whether its DOS - Windows 
>or OS/2 - WPS, the _combination_ must be reliable -- as the original
>poster mentions.  (The aps must be considered in this too, but this
>is an os group after all)
>
>-- Craig
>

As far as OS/2 is concerned, the WPS is just another PM application.
A WPS crash normally has no effect on other PM/DOS/Windows apps
that may be running.  You do NOT lose 6 hours work.  The combination
IS reliable for the most part.  A WPS crash is more an inconvenience
than anything else; it even restarts automatically.  You are not even 
asked to reboot the system.
-- 

==============================================================================
Jeff Cohen         | Standard disclaimer:  My views are my own and may or may
jeffc@netcom.com   |                       not represent the views of IBM.
==============================================================================
From: "robert fielder" <robert.fielder@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: what crash...
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:55:48 EST
Reply-To: "robert fielder" <robert.fielder@canrem.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems


BD>We find that the  WPS is the app  that misbehaves the most.  And we have

Bill:

Just as a note.....I have had my system tell me that WPS is not
responding to messages. I select "Enter" to kill it, and it goes away
and comes back and rebuilds the desktop.

However, I have found that if I just leave it long enough, the lockup
goes away on its own.  I am not saying that this is OK - something is
going into a loop someplace and taking forever to come out.  Systems
that appear to be locked but are not are just as bad as systems that
really are locked up - you still can't work!

Robert

Entered on Fri  08-21-1992  18:06:06 from Brampton, Ontario, Canada
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #502  Geoworks: What Windows NT presumes to become....
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:07:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Aug12.102821.26606@wsl.ie> jja@wsl.ie (John J. Allen) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>: 
>:       More like "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!"
>: 
>: 					-Phil
>
>       More like "Sharks and Black Widows and Taran, oh my!"
>
>Hey Phil, grow up and stop the silly comments.

Didn't someone say that MS people had no sense of humor.
I guess it was the NON-MS folk they were talking about.
;) ;) ;)

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions...
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: pc week and nt
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:46:10 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <19920813104812CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN) writes:
>Because they didn't deliver on their contratural obligations on the
>SDK, and they took OS/2 support out of their language offerings.

Everyone remember the little fiasco over the MS-OS/2 2.0 pre-release
SDK?  Developers paid Microsoft $1600 for the pre-release SDK for OS/2
2.0.  MS dropped the thing and would't refund more than $300 - instead they
offered to give a free NT SDK - valued at $69 by today's market.
Isn't that lovely?

Fortunately, IBM stepped in and gave free IBM pre-release SDKs to the
developers that got shafted out of their $1600.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
From: mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Mike Levis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: what crash...
Date: 22 Aug 92 07:45:16 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Aug22.2712.4005@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>DC>WPS is another application, just like Excel is.  Both run as children
>DC>of PM.
>
>Well, I  can run  OS/2 without  Excel. Can  you tell  me how to run OS/2
>without WPS?

I can.  Did you read the OS/2 FAQL?

   [...]
:
:(29)	Are there any clever tricks that apply to OS/2 2.0?
:
   [...]
:
:If you wish to dispense with the Workplace Shell (and its overhead), 
:particularly on low memory systems, change the line SET RUNWORKPLACE... 
:in CONFIG.SYS to read SET RUNWORKPLACE=C:\OS2\CMD.EXE (replacing "C," if 
:necessary, with a different drive letter).
:
   [...]

>Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com


-- 
====== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ======
"I believed what I was told, I thought it was a good   .--.
life, I thought I was happy.  Then I found something  (OS/2)
that changed it all..."    --  Anonymous, 2112         ~--~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Origins of IBM / Microsoft rift
From: jstewart@desire.wright.edu
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:57:29 EST
 <1992Aug07.192831.17275@microsoft.com> <1992Aug13.123325.8107@jpradley.jpr.com> <1992Aug14.093344.4604@microsoft.com>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug14.093344.4604@microsoft.com>, petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
> In article <1992Aug13.123325.8107@jpradley.jpr.com> grumpy@jpradley.UUCP (Jeff Markel) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug07.192831.17275@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>>>Okay, check the similarities here.
>>>DOS is a bios app that loads and runs applications.
>>>OS/2 is a bios app that loads and runs applications.
>>>...
>>>
>>>After dos passes off control to Windows, Windows owns the system.
>>>All dos provides is a filesystem service.  Does it really matter in
>>>what order something is loaded as to whether it is an OS or not.
>>>I would think that the functionality determins whether it is an
>>>OS.
>>>
>>>petesk@microsoft.com
>>>My Opinions....or was that Onions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>OS/2 doesn't really use the BIOS, so it CAN'T be a BIOS app.
> 
> But OS/2 uses the BIOS as its boot sector loader, just as Win31 uses
> DOS as it's loader, so by the logic so commonly used in this group (cynicism)
> OS/2 Is as much BIOS app as Win31 is DOS app.
> 
> petesk@microsoft.com
> 
> 
	Bzzzzttt wrong try again.  The differance is OS/2 uses some of the BIOS
for set up and initialization(I know it gets memory size this way).  Once its
up the bios could disappear for all it cares.  On the Other hand windows is
continuously using Dos and Thus Bios to do all of it's file I/O.  And I bet you
guys used it for some of the video mode switching too it's sooooo much easier
than programming the card directly.

					John Stewart
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT goes "late Beta" in 8 weeks! (was Re: Windows NT 'Alpha')
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:25:05 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Aug20.202829.28984@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jaguar.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>Microsoft may well "rule", and get rude (er?), but as quick as they
>do a coallition will form against them and things will start all over again.

I can see the nect generation now:  GeoWorks/586, sponsored by the
DR/Novell/Borland consortium taking over the market forcing Microsoft
and IBM into bankrupcy....

Naaah.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "I don't even represent myself
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   sometimes so NJIT is right out!.
 ((|,)
  ~|~  Hi! I am a .signature virus, copy me into your .signature file.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: superVGA  (and misc top-blowing)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 08:05:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.125401.18428@hellgate.utah.edu> brian%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> 
> beta.  Borland said at the NT developers conference that they will
> have the NT version out within 2 months of NT's release.

That should sometime in September next year then......go on! Hold your breath!
 
You said it was shame that you had to buy the hardware to run an OS. I assume
you have a 486/50 with 16megs of RAM and a 200 meg hard drive sitting around
for NT. 
 
Or you can run OS/2 2.0 on a 386sx/20MHz with 6 megs of RAM.
 
I saw NT today. *BOW WOW* If that's a desktop system, then MVS/XA is the next
step for the desktop!
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
From: AV@vnet.ibm.com (Anton Versteeg)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:38:22 CET
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: os/2 and nt
Reply-To: AV@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Uithoorn - Netherlands
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: UReply 3.0

In <1992Aug13.2712.3558@dosgate> "bill dehaan" <bill.dehaan@canrem.com> writes:
>In message <19920810.104404.346
>Versteeg) writes:
>
>>I think it's perfectly alright to have two (wouldn't call them double)
>>standards here. Porting *existing* applications to OS/2 2.0 is probably less
>>than 1% of the effort to develop a *new* Operating System.
>>Don't you agree?
>
>Actually, no. Given the problems that OS/2 has with supporting backlevel
>OS (Windows, DOS) in addition to its own code, I'd say that the  efforts
>are probably about equal. OS/2 has the advantage in terms of the  amount
>of existing code; NT has the advantage of a considerably cleaner  design
>without having  to maintain  the campatability  with other  systems that
>OS/2 does. Obviously, OS/2 was here first. But I'd say that NT is pinned
>at  about  a  year  behind  OS/2.  Given  that  NT  is considerably more
>ambitious, I'd put them at about an equal footing.
>
>And from what we've seen of NT, porting an existing Win3[01] application
>to it is no worse or better than porting the same application to OS/2.
>
You didn't get my point.
In the original post philipla from MS complained about 'double standards'
in the context that people mentioned all the time that NT isn't a
released product yet, while at the same time mentioning OS/2 applications
that were announced to be available this year.
I still think this is OK given that the effort of porting applications
can not be compared to the effort to develop a new operating system
(designed from scratch, according to MS posts).
A second difference is that many of these OS/2 apps have an announced
availability date, while NT still doesn't have an official announcement.
(availability dates, contents, etc.). All I have heard is that it
slipped into 1993.

>----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>Deus Ex Machina                   | Internet:   bill.dehaan@rose.com
>Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
>----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>---
> . SLMR 2.1a . Kenneth, what's the frequency?
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
>

Anton Versteeg - IBM - Uithoorn Netherlands - TEAMOS2 NL