HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsmolnar@descartes.waterloo.edu
Subject: Re: SoundBlaster and Windows 3.1
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:48:52 GMT

In article <9204062259.AA25678@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> ST802200@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (Rob Ryan) writes:
>My apologies if this has been pointed out before, but apparently Windows 3.1
>requires v2.0 of SoundBlaster's DSP chip.  You can find out what version
>you have by running the program TEST-SBC included on your SoundBlaster
>disks.
>
>If you want a upgrade, you can call Creative Labs Sales at 1-408-428-6600.
>It costs $30 (plus $5 shipping).  Apparently the old chip waited for the
>buffer to fill before sending output whereas the new chip sends data as it
>gets it.  The result is that older chips produce delays when you implement
>the .WAV sounds for system events in Win 3.1.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>-- Rob
No actually it doesn't require 2.0 at all, it has music drivers for both 
the SB 1.0 and SB 1.5 (I have the 1.5) and it works fine with either.
From: palmer@isye.gatech.edu (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:18:32 GMT

donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:

>Hey, I think I finally came up with a good reason to get my free OS/2 2.0
>upgrade.  (From the OS/2 1.3 version that came bundled with my PS/2 which I
>threw in the trash long ago.)  Perhaps when NT is released, Microsoft will
>give me a very big discount for trading in OS/2 2.0.  I think I'll get
>the free upgrade and stick it on my top shelf right next to my copies of IBM's
>Personal Editor, Professional Editor, Displaywrite, Filing Assistant and
>empty OS/2 1.3 binder where the first page will be avaliable for ripping
>out to send to Microsoft for my NT upgrade.  ;-)

Maybe those PS/2s saved you some money after all!  :-)  Wish I had your shelf
space...
--
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  23665
Temporarily a Techie: Center for Human-Machine System Research, Georgia Tech
Voice: 404-894-4318,    FAX: 404-894-2301,    Email: palmer@chmsr.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn)
Subject: Re: Word for Windows is the greatest. (Not at Microsoft)
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:18:56 GMT

In article <44174@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> nuspljj@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Joseph J. Nuspl Jr.) writes:
/>
/>
/>Microsoft says that Word for Windows is the greatest thing since Windows.
/>"With W4W, there is no need for a desktop publishing program."
/>
/>Yet, 
/>
/>--Taken from the press release from Microsoft--
/>
/>%!PS-Adobe-3.0
/>%%Creator: Windows PSCRIPT
/>%%Title: PageMaker 4.0 - NTWIN32.PM4
/>%%BoundingBox: 14 9 597 784
/>%%DocumentNeededResources: (atend)
/>%%DocumentSuppliedResources: (atend)
/>%%Pages: (atend)
/>%%BeginResource: procset Win33Dict 3 1
/>/Win33Dict 290 dict def Win33Dict begin/bd{bind def}bind def/in{72
/>mul}bd/ed{exch def}bd/ld{load def}bd/tr/translate ld/gs/gsave ld/gr/grestore
/>
/>
/>Interesting.

Even more interisting, this suggests that this was produced by a 32-bit
version of Pagemaker running on NT.  Perhaps Microsoft may be closer to
dropping the NT bombshell on OS/2 2.0 than we have been led to
believe and with a whole slew of 'NT' specific applications at the same
time.

--
Donald A. Lehn, Ph.D.                      Phone: (301) 496-2885
Bldg.37 Rm 3D20                            FAX:   (301) 496-8419
National Cancer Institute / NIH            Email: donnel@helix.nih.gov
Bethesda MD 20892
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1; ATM and Intellifont
From: jcclark@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Curtis Clark)
Date: 17 Apr 92 10:00:28 PST
Distribution: comp
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: jcclark

In article <JOHN.92Apr9073432@utafll.utafll.uta.edu>, john@utafll.uta.edu (John Baima) writes:
> I am having a lot of problems with my both my Intellifont fonts and
> ATM fonts. My Intellifonts print, but the CG Times font does not show
> up in AmiPro, but it does in Write. Most all of my ATM fonts do not
> show up in either Write or AmiPro on screen or on paper (Laserjet
> IIIp). I have had no problems with the TrueType fonts, but I have lots
> of docs with my ATM fonts :-(. Any suggestions?

I have a similar problem: Intellifont shows a crude screen image in all 
applications.  In Ami Pro 2.0, italics print OK, but show as normal font
on-screen.  Italics show on-screen in all other apps.  ATM and TT fonts
work fine in all apps.

Curtis Clark
jcclark@csupomona.edu
From: heathh@cco.caltech.edu (Heath Ian Hunnicutt)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: HELP: Windows 3.1
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:19:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cco.1992Apr7.051927.21779
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

bakalov@WFUNET.WFU.EDU (Rudy Bakalov) writes:


>        Hello everybody:
>        I madly need your help. I spent the whole day trying to install
>Win 3.1 and I couldn't. It's a real shame-- I used to think my CS degree
>has some value.
[Windows only comes up in 3.0a /s mode...]
>        I am running 386/25MHz, 4Mb, ET4000, Stacker, 386MAX.
>        Please, help ASAP. I feel I am missing something very simple, but
>I couldn't find it. I tried to install in a new DIR-- same effect.
>        I WILL HIGHLY APPRECIATE ANY FEEDBACK.

	First, you should read the setup.txt file on disk #1.  It has
important info for you and probably your biggest problem -- Stacker.

	Since you are running Stacker, you have to configure it in some
certain manual that I read in setup.txt but don't recall.  Anyway, it's
there for you to read.  

	Furthermore, try booting off of a floppy so that EMM386 is installed,
not 386MAX.  If possible, do not use Stacker.  (Obviously, you must run
Stacker to install on a Stacker drive..)  Win 3.1 should install Ok with
a standar setup like this.

Hope this helps,
Heath

P.S. My 3.1 upgrade installed A-OK, and I am running MSDOS 5.0, EMM386,
no stacker, tons of TSRs, with a nearly full hard drive, a TSeng 4000
Graphics Card, and SETUP just sailed right through it all.  So, my
guess is: Stacker or 386MAX is the culprit.

-- 
Pert Plus is a technological breakthrough designed for today's active people
to look great without a fuss.  Pert Plus is a _complete shampoo plus
conditioner in one bottle_!  PERT PLUS REALLY WORKS!
(My opinions are my own, not Caltech's, not even Procter & Gamble's)
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:45:07 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1992Apr15.212553.19410@ncsu.edu> linville@fritz.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>
>You, Dr. Lehn, are unwilling to upgrade your 286 to a 386 because it is too
>expensive for you, yet you are willing to wait a year or more for NT to become
>available, to pay $500-$1000 for it, and also buy multiple *EXPENSIVE*
>hardware platforms to run it on?  I'm sorry, I just don't understand your
>reasoning.

I think Donald Lehn meant that those expensive machines were already
available where he currently works at.

However, that doesn't help the tens of millions of typical users who
don't have access to such hardware.  So NT may be right for him, but
his situation is by no means representative of the general PC public.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: john.will@satalink.com (John Will) 
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: RE: WHY I'M STICKING WITH
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:05:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SataLink Info Systems - Huntingdon Valley, PA - 215-364-3324
Reply-To: john.will@satalink.com (John Will) 

TO: donnel@helix.nih.gov
DA.Another perspective on why to stick to Windows.  I have 5 IBM Model 80
  .PS/2's with 2 mb ram and 80 mb hard drives.  These machines are perfectly
  .adequate Windows platforms.  To upgrade to OS/2 2.0 for these machines
  .would require 4 mb ram ($600.00) and at least another 80 mb hard disk
  .($800.00).  [PS/2 upgrades are not cheap.]  For the same $1400.00 I can
  .buy a 386 clone with svga graphics, 80 mb hard drive, 4 mb memory and
  .with DOS 5.0 and Windows included in the bundle. 

Gee, with another $160, you could add an additional 4mb of RAM, spend the
$49 to upgrade from Windows to OS/2, and have it too.  Now, where were
those "huge" savings you were alluding to?
---
 . KingQWK 1.05 . Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
                                                                                                                    
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: arakins@iastate.edu (Andrew R Akins)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Resource Kit - is this useful?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:55:39 GMT

In article <1356@hydra.bucknell.edu> skelly@bucknell.edu (sean kelly `94) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.181441.6133@sequent.com>, rbk@sequent.com (Bob Beck) writes:
>> "Windows 3.1
>> Resource Kit" for $19.95 plus shipping/etc.  Does anyone have this and/or can
>> comment on it - is this useful?  What's in it?  Is it worth $19.95 +
>> shipping?
>I don't know if I'm right, but I was ont the MS BBS yesterday and I saw the Win3.1 Resource Kit as an available download.  Maybe MS figures the huge amount of time it would take to download (2 megs or something like that) wouldn't make it worth it.  Or ma
>ybe they just presume that not many people will be calling their BBS.  Any feedback?
>
>-Sean

 It is the WRK, and you can download it - I did. The catch is that all of the
documentation is on-line, and it's big: .8 megs of zipped text.
 But, the smrtdrive monitor, topdesk, resource monitor, network assistant and
such are very useful. Plus, a lot of interesting tidbits are hidden in the
text files.

  Although like someone previously said: I don't know why Microsoft didn't just
put this stuff with Windows itself - a fair amount of it would be really useful
in setup....

-- Andy Akins
   Iowa State University
   arakins@iastate.edu


Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: ejs@borland.com (Eric Swenson)
Subject: Re: Need to knows UWarchives IP address
Organization: Borland International
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:39:43 GMT

> need to know the UWARCHIVES IP address or someone could show me 
>how to ftp to it.

The IP address of wuarchive.wustl.edu is 128.252.135.4

-- Eric

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: iam@stiatl.salestech.com (Ian Mercado)
Subject: Re: QEMM 6, windows and DOS box
Organization: Sales Technologies, Inc.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:17:18 GMT

amemjm@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:

>Hi all,
>	I've just instyalled QEMM-386 version 6.02, and have an odd problem with
>windows. 


>DEVICE=C:\QEMM386.SYS ST:M

>I suspect the stealth parameter is th problem, prob it's mapping a system ROM
>that is needed, but any ideas which one??

Aha!  I see that I am not the only one to experience problems with Stealth
and Windows 3.1.  In fact, I cannot even get 3.1 to come up at all when I
am running with Stealth in effect.

Question:  Has ANYONE out there in netland gotten 3.1 to work with Stealth...
RELIABLY, that is.  I am having the worst time getting 3.1 to be stable
on my 486/33 EISA.  Blecch!

Ian

-- 
--------   ----   ----   --    |   Ian Mercado: iam@salestech.com             |
   --     -    -  -----  --    |                emory!slammer!stiatl!iam      |
   --    -------- --  -----    |                                              |
-------- --    -- --   ----    |            "I'd rather be flying."           |
From: fahole@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Cricket and Win3.1 compatibility
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:23:41 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <92103.174910MALLETP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, MALLETP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
> I was considering purchasing Cricket Graph for Windows so I called one of those
>  mail order places and asked if Cricket was compatible with Windows 3.1. He tol
> d me that there are FEW applications that are compatible. Since I am currently
> awaiting MicroSoft's delivery of 3.1 I would like to know if there is any truth
>  to this. I was under the impression that all applications compatible with Wind
> ows 3.0 would also be compatible with 3.1. If not, I'll be sure to cancel my or
> der to MicroSoft. If anybody knows whether or not 3.0 applications are compatib
> le with 3.1 or if anybody has any comments/reviews of Cricket Graph for Windows
> , I would really appreciate a posting or E-mail. Thanks in advance

Cricket graph is barely compatable with windows 3.0.  The current version (1.3)
was actually written for win 2.1 and includes a run time module of win 2.1.
It requires its own fonts and will not use windows 3.0 or 3.1 fonts.  I have
been very disapointed with its performance and the fact that it has gone so
long without an upgrade of any sort.  Unless, of course, they have upgraded
it without telling registered users.
-- 
David Hole                  FAHOLE@USU
Utah State University       FAHOLE@CC.USU.EDU
Logan, UT                   Just say snow!
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: daw50509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Don A. Walthers)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and svga
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:25:21 GMT

admiral.uucp!fsaleem@uunet.uu.net (Farzan Saleem) writes:

>I hope that this hasn't been discussed already, since I haven't been
>on for a while... 
> 
>I currently run Win 3.1 in 1024x768x256 on my computer (386/33 Cache
>4 megs ram, 120 mb hd). I am thinking of switching over to OS/2 ver 2
>except that I was told that it was only able to run in 640x480x16, 
>which now looks terrible since I got used to 1024x768. 
> 
>Is there any truth in this, or will os/2 handle 1024x768? How about
>800x600?  Again, I apologize if this has been discussed before.
>
i don't mean to be rude(NOT!) but if your going to switch to os/2 switch
to an os/2 news group also. this will benefit us windows users by cutting
down on the ever increasing junk here and you would most likely get a
more accurate and unbiased response to your question. btw- i installed
mps's stealth fighter on an os/2 machine and it sucked!!! why would an
os/2 machine with 640*480 resolution reduce a vga doss app to a window 
about the size of a windows3.1 clock. also, the screen refresh rate would
make that program look slow to a c-64 user(not extinct yet, are they?).
- and want to know about svga? if you don't plan on running dos apps and 
just want to waste your money then forget what i just said, but still 
switch to nn group where you might be wanted.
no hard feelings?


-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Don Walthers : daw50509@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu : University of Illinois at U-C |
| -Where alcohol and academics go hand-in-hand, so they say.              |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jsmolnar@descartes.waterloo.edu
Subject: Re: Mouse in DOS window????? Was: Re: VGA in DOS windows
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:25:17 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.180440.13543@ugle.unit.no> robert@solan.unit.no (Robert Schmidt) writes:
>In article <ZiNHiB1w164w@olson.acme.gen.nz>, stefan@olson.acme.gen.nz (Stefan Olson) writes:
> > kc2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kwan-Ju Chen) writes:
> > 
> > > Does Windows 3.1 supports vga mode under DOS windows?
> > 
> > Sure does, and what's more it displays DOS icons correctly (the icon you
> > use the the PM displays when minimized!!)
> > You can alos use the mouse in a dos window...
> > 
> > ...Stefan
>
>This is the one thing I haven't got working!!  Several people claim that
>the DOS application will react to mouse activity, even if it's reduced to
>a window in 386 enhanced mode.  I can't get this to work!
>
>By default, nothing happened when I used the mouse in the DOS window.
>Then, by changing some option in the Control Panel, I got back to the
>normal cut and paste of Win30 by default...
>
>Do I need a special mouse driver, or what?
>
What you need is a driver from your video card maker.  Somehow they are incorporated,  I have dirvers that are 3.1 aware and will allow the use of mice in a window (and change font size).
From: max@thraxds.lonestar.org (David Burgess)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win3 and QEMM
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:04:43 CDT
Organization: THRAX Computer Services (214)780 1736 (Data)/(817)265 1312 (Voice)

Norman.Russell@f43.n140.z1.fidonet.org (Norman Russell) writes:

> Hi,  
>   
> I was wondering if it is worth my money to purchase the QEMM  
> memory manager for DOS when running MS-Windows 3.0 or 3.1? 
>  
>   
> Is the QEMM memory manager any better than the hi-mem manager  
> that come with Windows?  
>   

IT is FAR BETTER!
From: ctb@ecl.psu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Cricket and Win3.1 compatibility
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:55:47 EDT
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Pennsylvania State University

In article <92103.174910MALLETP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, MALLETP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
> I was considering purchasing Cricket Graph for Windows so I called one of those
>  mail order places and asked if Cricket was compatible with Windows 3.1. He tol
> d me that there are FEW applications that are compatible. Since I am currently
> awaiting MicroSoft's delivery of 3.1 I would like to know if there is any truth
>  to this. I was under the impression that all applications compatible with Wind
> ows 3.0 would also be compatible with 3.1. If not, I'll be sure to cancel my or
> der to MicroSoft. If anybody knows whether or not 3.0 applications are compatib
> le with 3.1 or if anybody has any comments/reviews of Cricket Graph for Windows
> , I would really appreciate a posting or E-mail. Thanks in advance

Paul,

I've run Cricket Graph (V1.3) about 5 or 6 times since upgrading to Win 3.1 and
I've had NO problems whatsoever with CG.  In fact, I haven't had any problems
with any of my apps in Win 3.1.  It looks like the rumours of incompatibility
are (so far) untrue.

BTW, DO NOT cancel your 3.1 order.  It's a huge improvement over 3.0!!  

--Chris Billman
  CTB@ECL.PSU.EDU
  Department of Mechanical Engineering
  The Pennsylvania State University
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo )
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
	<1992Apr15.201720.3686@alw.nih.gov>
	<1992Apr16.003354.5054@scott.skidmore.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:53:03

In article <1992Apr16.003354.5054@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

>  [A serious question.... no flame intended...]

>  Would you seriously give up UNIX on all your gov't computers in your
>  department for NT?  Would the wizards let you do that???


>  -- 
>  Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu

I don't believe he would have to. I have seen the NT architectural 
diagrams, and it looks like the NT kernal can accept various operating
systems on *top* of it. So you can have things like DOS, UNIX, or
conceivably, OS/2 running in their own virtual spaces, all concurrently
and all without detecting each other's presence. I have not seen how
this would degrade overall system performance, however....





--
 - Rob DeMillo			| Internet: 	 demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu
   MIT Lincoln Lab 		| Also Internet: rjd@brown.cs.edu
   Weather Sensing - Group 43	| Reality: 617-981-2105 (office)

"Operation Goofy now in effect!"
	--- Tom Servo, "Gamera vs. Gaos," Mystery Science Theater 3000

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: wolfi@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Schwanke)
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 and WinGif?
Organization: Techn. University of Berlin, Germany
Distribution: comp
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 09:08:04 GMT

echuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ernest Y. Chuang) writes:

>Does anyone out there with Windows 3.1 use WinGif?  It worked fine
>for me under Windows 3.0, but after I upgraded to 3.1, it gives me
>an error every time I try to load a .gif file (it still seems to
>load other formats ok).  I'm just wondering if it's a real 
>incompatibility, or if it's just my system.  I think the version of
>WinGif I have is 1.0.


Yes, I got the same problem with Wingif 0.90.
Worked with win 3.0, but complains about the file format of .gif with win 3.1.

So I downloaded Wingif 1.4, and that works fine. It's better too.

BTW check out Paintshop Pro 1.0, not bad at all.

>
>- Ernest Chuang
>  echuang@cory.berkeley.edu

Wolfgang

--
* Wolfgang Schwanke * Technische Universitaet Berlin * Germany * wolfi on irc *
* email: wolfi@cs.tu-berlin.de  wolfaefg@w250zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de  wolfi%opal@db0tui11 *

"Ideology is the science of idiocy."
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: vargish@sura.net (Nicholas Vargish)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Bugs - Threat or Menace?
Summary: Wired for Sound
Keywords: windows 3.1 bug
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:01:16 GMT

In article <centaur.702709253@cc.gatech.edu> centaur@terminus.gatech.edu (Anthony G. Francis) writes:

>Under Windows, I run BACKDESK as my shell, with Screen Peace, Change Cursor,
>Wired For Sound, and File Manager. Loading Windows under these conditions
>has produced the following bugs:

Wired for Sound is unreliable under Windows 3.1 according to the MS
techrep I talked to yesterday afternoon. Since 3.1 also killed
SuperStor I don't really have the space for WfS anyway, but still...
try running Windows without WfS.

>Spontaneous Crash of BigDesk, usually after some other winapp goes down
>Crash of Backmenu on Windows Exit

Didn't have this problem, but I'll watch out for it.

>Crash of WinGif on 256 color BMPs
> mode
>Crash of Program Manager (!!!) when I attempt to delete empty program groups,

I've seen this, but I thought it was related to the SuperStor problem,
or possibly NDW 1.0.

> plus one spontaneous crash
>Failure of the DOS program Eye of the Beholder to load

In a window or full screen? Trying to run a game as fancy as EOB under
Windows is asking for trouble. Most games are less carefully debugged
than most apps (although I'm beginning to wonder...), and many of them
do "unexpected" things to wring the max performance from a system.
Windows may not be able to handle this. [Wing Commander II can be
multi-tasked under OS/2 ok, though! or so I've been told... :^)]

Nick
-- 
Nick Vargish
SURAnet Operations
vargish@sura.net
From: nsus_cif@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Nick Susch)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: SoundBlaster on Exit.
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:59:10 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

I have a question about Win3.1 and the Soundblaster, actually a probalem,
and was wondering if any one else has come accross it. Sometimes, when I
quit windows, it leaves my Soundblaster in a state of "dissarray". Thats is,
after windows quits, my Soundblaster card make a buzzing, static type sound.
This does not happen most of the time, but it is annoying when it does. Does
anyone know what would be causing this?

--
They say there is strangeness to danger us | /\/ick Susch - U. of Rochester
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,     | nsus_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
That those who know what's best for us     | nsus_cif@uordbv.bitnet
Must rise and save us from ourselves.      | ... !rochester!ur-cc!nsus_cif
				   -RUSH   	
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:12376 comp.windows.misc:751