HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK)
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft the next Standard Oil?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu
Organization: Colon Cancer Control Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:09:00 GMT

In article <1i6bh8INNp3q@shelley.u.washington.edu>, robs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Suh) writes:
> Actually, from what I understand, the FTC deal is that MS had entered into
> a contractional agreement with PC manufactures about loading of DOS into their
> computers.  (Something about have DOS as the sole OS on the PC's, not too
> important of detail.)  

Everything I've heard says that there were no exclusivity provisions in these
contracts. Requiring exclusive installation of MS-DOS would definitely be
anti-competitive.

> Microsoft didn't hold a gun to PC manufactures heads
> and say that they WILL distribute only MS products.  No, MS just signed a
> contract with the individual PC manufactures, in which they agreed.  
> I don't see anything wrong with that.  (But I guess FTC does, because they
> consider it 'anti-competitive'.) >

The FTC hasn't decided whether to pursue the case.  A leaked report of
the investigators recommends action but the Commission has yet to review
the report and consider its action.  At least during the first Reagan term
it wasn't unusual for the full Commission to table action on a specific
report. As for the purpose of the leak, perhaps the SEC should investigate
the FTC to see if anyone has bought or sold MS stock recently :-))

--rick

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard Hoffbeck               INTERNET: rwh@moose.cccs.umn.edu |
| Colon Cancer Control Study     ATT     : (612) 627-4151         |
| University of Minnesota        CIS     : 72406,521              |
| Minneapolis, MN 55455                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Best Hardware for OS2
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:08:29 GMT

In article <1iupbbINNhb8@tamsun.tamu.edu> bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs) writes:
>Exactly how important is speed?  Would a 486-33 do?  If so, I think
>you could get an IBM valuepoint for <$2000.  With an XGA grapicics
>adaptor, speed probably wouldn't be that great a consideration unless
>you have some particular CPU intensive software.


	Unless he uses a lot of DOS software, which benefits *greatly* 
	(as compariny a local bus gateway to an identical gateway
	with an identical but non-local bus gateway running WC and
	other DOS-based graphics intensive SW will attest to) from
	a local bus system.  (makes running dos stuff under OS/2 
	even nicer.. ) 

	Question:  Is IBM ever going to do anything with that clock
	tripler chip of theirs (dx3-99?), or is it just not worth it
	(unreliable?)--my dx2-66 runs (on average) about ~1.6 times as
	fast as my friends dx-33.  Are they hitting the limits at 99--
	that is, does the cache-miss ration drag the improvement 
	to only, say, 1.8 or 1.9x a dx-33?


	

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: RFD: how about comp.s
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:11:00 GMT
Reply-To: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371

EC..comp.os.os2.multimedia
EC..comp.os.os2.hardware
EC..comp.os.os2.newuser
EC..are three of my ideas, for multimedia support, getting specific hardware
EC..issues resolved and helping new users figure out what's what (we all know
EC..how it can sometimes be a 'different' experience, installing, configuring,
EC..running OS/2 <grin>).  Another one I was thinking of was a group for
EC..software/hardware reviews pertaining to OS/2 that people could submit for
EC..everyone to read.  Perhaps:

EC..comp.os.os2.review

What about

comp.os.os2.flaming.extreme  ;-)

/\/\ | |< |.                                     mike.dickson@almac.co.uk
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 5 Jan 1993 15:39:15 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.012301.29017@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>Mearly stating that they are getting screwed isn't proof that they are.
>Nobody has said how the consumers are getting screwed now--the only thing
>mentioned is some vague suppositions about how its "in the future" that
>they will get screwed when it supposedly will raise prices.  This is all
>supposition.

People who don't want or need licenses for MS-DOS and Windows are being forced
to pay for them anyway.

>As far as Microsoft's competition getting screwed, well, if my software was
>selling 2 million copies a year like OS/2 is, Microsoft can screw me all day
>long!  And if I made as much money as Novell did off of Netware, Microsoft
>could screw me all night long.

Just wait until they achieve the monopoly position that they want and you seem
to believe is their moral right. Then watch everyone get screwed.

>Another unsubstantiated supposition.  Must we repeat the "name that monopoly"
>thread?

No, since you apparently refuse to accept the common definition of "monopoly".
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu (David O'Donnell)
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Followup-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Organization: Enhanced Cybernetic Logic Operating Systems Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:20:14 GMT

In article <1i2m40INNi3p@network.ucsd.edu> 
mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>Yeah, I wonder what the content of those conversations were.  Just
>whose bug will get fixed first?  Just whose features will be added?

Well, if one is an MS-basher, it would seem that your question is rhetorical.

>The undocumented calls I think are essentially irrelevant.  MS can
>use NO undocumented calls in their products and still have a huge advantage.

...and we must not, under any circumstances, allow Microsoft to have any ad-
vantage at all, right? Why don't we force them to split into pieces, then
force the OS division to continue to produce OSes for which source is given
to all the competitors first, and held back from the other divisions? That
should teach them a lesson, shouldn't it.

If Microsoft is such a devil-incarnate, why doesn't some company produce an
OS that runs adequately on a wide range of Intel-based CPUs and has features
superior to MS-DOS? OS/2 Advocates, get serious; the world cannot afford to
buy 486/33DXes with 16M of RAM and 250M hard drives just to get decent res-
ponse.

One would think that, if Microsoft were indeed one-upping the software world,
we would not hear of applications by other companies being deemed better. And
yet we do: Ami Professional; Paradox; Quicken; et cetera.

-- David O'Donnell
   atropos@netlab.cis.brown.edu
The opinions expressed above are SOLELY mine and have no association with Brown
University.
From: spexet@math.lsa.umich.edu (D. Robert Spexet II)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! : )
Date: 7 Jan 1993 06:19:47 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan, Mathematics Department, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: supernova.math.lsa.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan06.222925.11481@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <8330@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.164051.3929@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>>A better statement is that the _majority_ of individuals voted for
>>>a certain law, and are imposing their will on the minority that
>>>disagree. That does not make a law in any way more fair or practical.
>>This is an argument against a majority-rule democracy. It holds little water,
>>however, unless you can somehow provide a better solution.
>
>    Of course, majority rule democracy gave us slavery, which
>everone knows was a good thing because most people supported it
>at the time.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic with this last statement or not.  Not
that this entire thread really has anything to do with the subject matter at
hand, but a statement like "majority rule democracy gave us slavery" could at
best be called extremely misleading, and at worst be called an utter false-
hood.

While it *is* true that the United States did have slaves at one point in its
history, the historical facts seem to indicate that there were other factors
at work besides the fact that this country had a democracy.  To be specific,
there were political systems in other places (other than traditional demo-
cracy as is practiced in the United States) that helped immensely to make
a contribution to the slavery situation in this country.

You may wish to think about whether or not you can dismiss an extremely complex
social subject with what appears to be at best a very over-simplified expla-
nation as to its cause.

For that matter, you may wish to move this thread to a different group.  We
are talking about OS/2 here, not slavery.

>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.


-- 
D. Robert Spexet II, N0OKR   Internet:  spexet@umich.edu, dspexet@attmail.com
Department of Mathematics    BITnet:    user68xr@umichum.bitnet
The University of Michigan   UUCP:      uunet!mailrus!math.lsa.umich.edu!spexet
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109    ATTMail:   !dspexet
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick)
Subject: Re: DOS 6 + OS/2!! - glory screens????
Organization: CSIRO Division of Mineral Products, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:42:10 GMT

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <1i7u0lINNggh@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> czmax@cats.ucsc.edu (Max C. Pritikin) writes:
>>
>>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:


>>	We have a bunch of people willing to flip over a supposed
>>evil message from the Evil Empire (TM).  (Speaking of which... Phil it 
>>*DOES* have a history of such things:
>>ie the WordPerfect Monster in MS Word 
>>and the limping, buggy, 123 icon in MS Excel 4.0. )

>     Ah - these are called 'glory screens'.  They typically list
>the names of the people who worked on the product, and are almost
>always very, very difficult to get to - you need to turn somersaults
>to see them.  I personally think they are a silly idea, and don't
>know how they get through code reviews.


How do you bring up the Wordperfect Monster in MS WORD?
(and the 123 icon in MS EXCEL 4.0?)

Just curious - what other 'glory screens' are there in
MS software.

Lachlan.

PS:-  Does Phil get extra danger money from BIG BILLY
for admitting he is an
MS employee on the internet?  (I'ts sounds  analogous
to  a homosexual campaigning for gay rights
in a Pub full of Drunk SkinHeads(?))
Just curious again - (grin).

Has there ever been an up-front Anti-MS post from an
MS employee?  (Analogous to a homosexual campaigning for 
compulsory lyching of gays in a pub full of Drunk
Skinheads(?))
Just Curious again - again.
-- 
  Lachlan Cranswick  -  CSIRO             _--_|\  lachlan@dmp.CSIRO.AU
  Division of Mineral Products           /      \ tel +61 3 647 0367
  PO Box 124, Port Melbourne 3207        \_.--._/ fax +61 3 646 3223
  AUSTRALIA                                    v 
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot and NT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:48:23 GMT

In article <8391@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.012848.3728@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	The one that doesn't--or *suppposedly* doesnt (I don't believe
>>	it for a second) is NeXT486.  Supposedly, it will only run on
>>	a genuine Intel 486SX or DX.  The Cyrix 486slc (?) is a full 
>>	80486 sans coprocessor (and Cyrix's external is faster than the
>>	DX's internal one).  NS486 will probably run fine--but NeXT
>>	says no.
>
>Actually, I had thought that the Cy486SLC was a beefed-up _386_ (improved
>pipelining, on-chip cache, etc), designed to drop into a 386 socket. There are
>6 instructions that Intel added to the 486 beyond the 386/387 instruction set,
>and NS486 makes very heavy use of at least one of them (a byte-swap
>instruction).


	The 486SLC includes all of the additional 80486 instructions.
	(You're right about it being a 386 drop in, though, but that's
	architecture, not a compatibility problem).

	This thread has bounced from comp.arch to comp.sys.next.*
	for the last few months--it has been pretty well established that the
	SLC is a genuine 486 sans coprocessor.  Since NS486 will supposedly run
	on an 80486SX, no one can think of why it wouldn't run on the
	Cyrix.

	Me, I think it's probably just that NeXT doesn't feel like dealing
	with any additional headaches, and Intel might be pushing them
	to make such announcements.


>I'm sure that when NS486 and the Cy486SLC are both on the market, we'll find
>out for sure...


	Indeed we will.  With Os/2 2.1 giving OS/2 the chance it needs,
	NT and NeXTStep 486, the coming year ought to be pretty interesting.
	Who knows, we might even see the beta of OS/2 Mach by december 
	and some of the new hardware (Alpha PC's, maybe a PowerPC)..


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: jurlwin@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Jeff Urlwin)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates:  What a weenie...
Organization: University of Maine, Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:11:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan09.121816.6570@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.173936.17197@nosc.mil> discar@nosc.mil wrote:
>
>> 
>> However, I tend to agree that Windows (as it comes on disk) is not an operating
>> system until it is installed on a machine.  The result, "Windows" or to be
>> more precise, "Windows+DOS" is an operating system that is far different than
>> just "DOS."
>> 
>Then again, the only advantage that a pre-installed OS/2 has over a 
>pre-installed Windows is the number of disks you can use a paperweights.
>Very few "Operating Systems" operate any systems until they are installed ;)

The advantage, of course, is also dependant upon your preference ;)

Jeff
>
>petesk@microsoft.com
>My Opinions.


-- 
--------------------------------------
jurlwin@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
From: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:19:21 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca

In <1993Jan7.193312.16367@clark.dgim.doc.ca> tennesen@mars.dgrc.doc.ca (Andy Tenne-Sens) writes:

>Although Windows 3.1 is a bunch of fixes wrapped in kluges and bound
>with chewing gum and baling wire, it does give me one thing: Word
> 2.0.
 
Word 2.0 runs just fine under Windows 3.0 and under OS/2 2.0.  I've
been using it under OS/2 for over a year. 

>I'm disturbed, however, that a recent posting stated that IBM has decided
>not to support TrueType scalable fonts.  Does anyone out there know if
>this is so? 

Don't know. 

>  Will IBM depend on Adobe for scalable-font capability?

OS/2 2.0 includes ATM for OS/2 *and* ATM for Windows built-in. 

>If I run OS/2, will I still be able to use Word for Windows 2.0 and
>some kind of scalable fonts?  Will I still be able to embed equations
>and graphics into my documents?

ATM scalable font technology works with Word for Windows 2.0 running
under OS/2 2.0.  I can't imaging that it wouldn't work under 2.1. 

>If I can't get the full capabilities of Word 2.0 under OS/2, then I stand
>to lose more than to gain by switching OSs.

You won't lose anything, and you don't need to wait for Windows 3.1
support in OS/2.  

-- 
Alan Ballard                   | Internet: ballard@ucs.ubc.ca
University Computing Services  |   Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG
University of British Columbia |    Phone: 604-822-3074
Vancouver B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2  |      Fax: 604-822-5116
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Subject: Re: SGI-GL in Windows NT??
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 02:20:25 GMT

In article <dlcogswe.726536483@vela> dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan Cogswell) writes:
>pathak@mitre.org (Heeren Pathak) writes:
>
>>In article <dlcogswe.726380388@vela>, dlcogswe@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Dan
>>Cogswell) wrote:
>>> 
>>> A guy I work with told me today the Microsoft has bought the rights to
>>> include SGI-GL with Windows NT and will be including it in an upcoming
>>> release!  This is quite an  advantage over OS/2 and brings NT to
>>> workstation level, in my opinion.  If NT will have GL standard, I will
>>> most likely be switching over from OS/2.
>>> 
>
>>BTW, where did you come up with the notion that GL is a standard.  GL
>
>I wrote:  "If NT will include GL".  I didn't say a thing about it being
>a standard.
>
>>images under NT.  Maybe it will form the basis of NT's 3D rendering API but
>>it won't provide for fast graphics unless hardware support for GL is also
>>available.
>
>Who was talking about fast??  OS/2 doesn't have ANY 3D graphics built in
>and you're faulting some other operating system because it's 3D graphics
>aren't FAST ENOUGH?? 
>
>
>-- 

When did 3D graphics become a necessity for a good OS ? :)


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:11708 comp.os.os2.apps:9877 comp.os.os2.misc:41262
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Better File Management??
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:29:00 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1993Jan1.213044.268@grebyn.com> mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>
>Does this mean that they have sped up the time it takes for the icons to
>be drawn when you open a window?  This has always bugged me.

The problem isn't in the icon draw time, but in the icon load time.
After having written some code using bitmaps and icons, I can safely
say that the speed to draw them is very very fast - faster than
Windows 3.1, for that matter.  The problem with WPS is that it has to
load the icons from each file in a folder.  This loading is what eats
time.  I'm sure there's room for optimizing here, but it's more
closely related to the speed to fetch EA's and resources out of files
than to the speed of painting (which is, after all, related to the
video driver).
-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: NT Destined to Succeed??
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:04:01 GMT

strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
[.....]
: On the other hand, I've used 
: Windows 3.0 on an 1M 286 for quite some time, and was quite
: happy with it.

Oh, well you're *really* easy to please aren't you?

I'm running 3.1 on a 4MB 286 and am frequently driven crazy by the
lousy response.

--
Real:  Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.
Email: (dbarker@spang.camosun.bc.ca)
Phone: +1 604 370 4452
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: If things had been different... (was: FCC etc)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:33:38 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <24744@galaxy.ucr.edu> insom@galaxy.ucr.edu (Chris Ulrich) writes:
>
>  Isnt everyone missing the boat with the "Why didnt IBM use the 68k and
>not the (blech) 8088?" argument?  After all, to my knowledge, the 68k
>did not exist in 1981, which is when the PC came out (it might have been

It existed.  In 1982, I built a little general purpose 68k system in the
Microprocessor Lab class at Caltech, and that was around March of 1982.
A friend of mine took the class a year earlier, and also built a 68k
system, so they were around in early 1981.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: kamp@ecf.toronto.edu (KAM PAUL PING-YAN)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:47:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.183639.16735@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.035204.2337@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

[stuff about OS/2 2.1 beta deleted]

>any update in one is reflected in the other.  Seamless drivers are
>provided for a large selection of SuperVGA adapters, right in the box.
>(The drivers support 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768 in 256 colors.)
>

Can you please tell us which SVGA adapters have drivers included?

- Paul Kam

>-- 
>Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
>sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
>Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
>of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]


Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: -= Signature Recommen
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:40:00 GMT
Reply-To: mike.dickson@almac.co.uk (Mike Dickson)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371

RS..Also, for what's it worth, I've been on a recruiting interview on MS
RS..and they didn't ask any of those questions.  (They just asked me to spell
RS..my name right.) :) )

Here's a good one. A few months ago, Bill Gates was on a prime time UK
chat show, prattling away in his inimitable nasal whine about his Vast
Wealth. He also had with him a Pen Windows prototype with a tablet and
pen and proceeded to demonstrate to the awestruck audience how you could
basically fill in a computerised form with it, and how his clever
computer system recognised your handwriting and translated the characters
from your untidy scrawl to one of its standard fonts.

Well...almost.

Gates filled in the form with his name and was a tad nonplussed to find
that the form came back to him with the letters

                                BILE GATIS

/\/\ | |< |.                                     mike.dickson@almac.co.uk
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . 1024x768x256.... Sounds like one MEAN women!
                                               
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy