HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:33:37 GMT


horan@ecs.umass.edu writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.142857.27595@alw.nih.gov>, donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:
>> 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.

>Windows itself runs poorly on 2mb.  I used it on 4mb for a while, and when
>I jumped to 8mb, it sped up noticably, so I imagine 2mb would suck.

I set up Windows 3.0 on a cached 386SX/20 w/ 2MB RAM at my dad's office. 
They currently use *only* Ami Pro on it and it crawls.  I've ordered more
memory for it.

>OS/2 takes 15-25, but you can delete...
>- Dos       3 meg.
>- Windows  12 meg.
>- ATM       ? 
>- other stuff depending on you applications.

These are wildly inaccurate and optimistic.

Here's the stuff from the selective install.  My total install of all
options except CD-ROM and PM Terminal (a 1.5MB applet!) occupies about
29MB, not including swap space.

CD ROM ........... 0.1 MB
Documentation .... 0.8 MB
Adobe Fonts ...... 1.1 MB
Optional System
    Utilities .... 1.2 MB
Tools and Games .. 5.7 MB
DOS support ...... 1.1 MB
DOS Virtual Mem .. 0.05 MB
Windows support .. 3.0 MB
HPFS ............. 0.4 MB
REXX ............. 0.4 MB
Misc. ............ 0.9 MB

So installing with no options means about 15 MB.

If there's no way you can get the OS/2 configuration you want to fit
on your hard drive, and you can't get a new hard drive, I'd recommend
sticking with Windows for now.  Eventually, no matter which way the
market turns, you'll have to get a bigger hard drive, and probably
more memory.
-- 
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: award@farside.auspex.com (Andrew Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Error: "call to undefined dynalink..." in 3.1: help!
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:09:11 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems

I've got a strange error when running 3.1

When I try to use windows write, I get the error "call to undefined dynalink
when starting write"   What does this mean?

I have created no dynamic links or imbedded things.

I was previously runing 3.0 under NDW 1.0 and upgraded all in one
fell swoop: first installed 3.1 over 3.0 then NDW 2.0 over 1.0
both according to the instructions.  I'de hate to have to prige everything
and start from scratch.

What's a poor user to do?

Any ideas?

- Andrew Ward
From: failsafe@cellar.org (Failsafe)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: QEMM6.01 and SMARTDRV.EXE
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:54:34 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:

> In article <sph0301.1@utsph.sph.uth.tmc.edu> sph0301@utsph.sph.uth.tmc.edu (K
> >Well, I just spent half the morning installing WIN3.1 and trying to optimize
> >memory.  SMARTDRV is now an executable instead of a device driver, has
> >increased in size from 8335 bytes (DOS5.0 version) to 43609 (!) bytes, and
> >so far QEMM refuses to let me load it into high memory.  Using the /GS
> >parameter shows that SMARTDRV requires 43K to load and leaves 27K resident
> >and can use the SQEEZEF option; but even with a bare bones config and
> >autoexec I can't make it load high. 
> >
> >Anybody else had any luck with this?
> >
> >Kate Wilson
> >sph0301@utsph.sph.uth.tmc.edu
> 
> I used DOS5.0 to load it high with no trouble at all. I'm pretty sure
> that people were successfully using QEMM to load SmartDrive high during
> beta testing, but I'm not sure exactly how they were doing it, sorry.
> 
> - Brian



I was successful loading smartdrive 4.0 high with QEMM 6.02 the first try 
with Optimize. No fuss. So I can testify it can be done.



Steve Roth
The Cellar BBS 215-654-9187
Philadelphia, PA.

------
failsafe@cellar.org (Failsafe)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 654-9184
From: David.Deitch@p0.f411.n133.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Deitch)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Windows 3.1 and AmiPro 2.0
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:34:12 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:133/411.0 - (GIS)Atlanta, Atlanta GA

On Thu, 02/Apr/92 at 19:40, Brian J. Smith said this to All:


 BJS> My Brand New copy of AmiPro2.0 crashes and burns in Win3.1 with

 BJS>                      Application Error
 BJS>         AMIPRO caused a General Protection Fault in
 BJS>                 module AMIPRO.EXE at wxyz:ijkl

 BJS> Anybody got any clues, should I call Lotus and see what the deal is ?

     Brian, mine does not have any problem.

          David Deitch, (GIS) Atlanta
 




--  
------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: gatech!warlord!gisatl!411.0!David.Deitch
INTERNET: David.Deitch@p0.f411.n133.z1.FIDONET.ORG
               __
              /  \             User: David Deitch
             /|oo \            Via FidoNet node: 1:133/411
            (_|  /_)     
             _`@/_ \    _     FidoNet <==> UUCP Gateway
            |     | \   \\    FidoNet Net 133, Atl96
            | (*) |  \_  ))   
  ______    |__U__| /  \//     David Deitch, Administrator
 / FIDO \    _//|| _\   /         
(________)  (_/(_|(____/ (jm)
From: nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: :-) ("Windows Sucks")
Date: 12 Apr 1992 02:50:49 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

griphg@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>pr@wam.umd.edu (Jesus M. Rodriguez) writes:
>> 
>> 	WINDOWS SUCKS!!!

>If you don't have something substantive to say, DON'T POST!!!

But Jerry, that statement WAS substantive, not to mention right to the point!

;-)

Ok, just a little good-natured humor, this group needs it.

--
                               _   /|
Nan Zou                        \'o.O'     "Procrastination is an art,
nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu           =(___)=     of which I am a master."
#include <std_disclaimer.h>       U
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog  
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:10:26 GMT

In article <70228@ut-emx.uucp> victor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (V Menayang) writes:
>1. You have a 16MHz SX or slower-cpu machine

I ran the 6.167 Beta on a 16 MHz machine and I was quite pleased with it.  The
subsequent Betas have all been much faster than that one, so I don't think that
you should be afraid of running at 16 MHz.  I don't think you could run it on
a machine slower than 16 MHz since I haven't seen too many <16 MHz 386s! :-)

>2. Your hard drive is 80MB or smaller

This is probably true, although I know of one or two people who are using OS/2
2.0 quite happily on 60 Mb drives.

>3. You have less than 6MB of RAM

The 16 MHz machine mentioned above had 5Mb of RAM.  This machine has 7 Mb.  The
more memory you have, the faster things are, but if you run only 3-4 things at
once, 4 Mb of ram should be sufficient.

>4. You use one windows application intensively
>   and are not willing to trade it with anything else.

As long as it runs in real or standard mode, you should be fine in OS/2.  For
that matter, if it is a Windows 2.x app (or one for 3.0 that breaks under 3.1)
You will be better off with OS/2 than with Windows 3.1.

>5. You don't have any os/2 or PM application

There are several advantages to OS/2 even if you never run any OS/2 programs.
Increased stability and greater convenience and ease of use are among them.

>6. You want a fast and snappy GUI environment

I find PM quite responsive.

>The above were written with typical Windows users in mind and some might
>not apply to DOS users.  In general, I think IBM has accomplished its
>goal to make a better DOS than DOS (so do DR, Quarterdeck, and the
>windows3 division of MS :-).  But OS/2 is just not a better windows than
>windows3 or windows31, YET. And remember, as one writer puts it, when
>you use OS/2 you inherit the problems from all three operating
>environment (Yes, you'll get the UAE's that we Win31 user no longer
>see).

The last part of that paragraph is misleading, if not false.  I haven't
seen any UAEs under winos2, but they may still be there.  The difference is
that if a Windows app crashes under OS/2, you just kill it and continue 
working (restarting only that app).  You don't have to exit and reboot, like
in Windows under DOS.  Also, just because Windows 3.1 doesn't call them UAEs,
that doesn't mean that apps can't corrupt the whole system, forcing you to
exit Windows and reboot.  UAEs are gone from Windows 3.1 in name alone.

John W. Linville




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: akm@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal)
Subject: Re: more bugs in 3.1
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:56:04 GMT


In article <1992Apr15.191319.10611@nic.unh.edu> pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes:
>But wait...it seems like _all_ my apps only allow one copy to run at a
>time under 3.1.  This includes WordPerfect for Windows (though I think
>it did this under 3.0 also), Wingz, MathCAD, and a few others, plus
>all the applets I've tried.  The only exceptions I've found so far are
>WinGIF 1.4 and anything in a DOS box.

This behavior is application specific. I just started up two copies of
cardfile, and wincomm, my communication program (not that there is
much point having two copies of the latter running as I have only one
available com port, one modem and one phone line... :-))

kartik



















-- 
Anant Kartik Mithal                                     akm@cs.uoregon.edu
Network Manager, Phd Student				(503)346-3989
Department of Computer Science,                         (503)346-5373 (fax)
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1202		
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc
From: floydb@rpi.edu 
Subject: Re: Windows NT
Reply-To: floydb@rpi.edu 
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - Admin. 
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:48:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.140516.21025@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>In article <grendel.702658219@harry.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> grendel@cis.ksu.edu (Stephen Spencer ) writes:
>...stuff about Windows NT deleted...
>>Sorry, but if I can't sit down with MASM and put together a simple (or complex)
>>program for Windows together, then there's a problem.  As a students I can't

..

>You could go the Borland route and get either TurboC++ for Windows or
>Turbo Pascal for Windows.  Either can be had for < $150.  I like
>to consider myself a fairly competent programmer, but I'd *never* 
>try to program windows under assemble.  Geesh, it's hard enough under
>C.
>
>On a related note, I recently read that Microsoft's compiler products
>will no longer support OS/2.  Sigh...
>--
>McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
>Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
>                                                             Joseph Campbell
 
I can't answer the origal post with a "Sure you can write MASM code for Win 3.x"
I too would suggest moving on. Since I learned programming on IBM assembler
and Fortran, entered on punch cards, I could by analogy ask why aren't punch
cards available for PC's and Windows programming? Sound inane to ask, given
all the better tools out there. If you have a lot of problems with the 
Windows situation you might switch to Geoworks, I believe they are predominantly
using MASM (in order to wedge a GUI on an 8088). It might be an 'educational'
experience as well...
 
barry
Organization: Little, if any.
X-Mac-Bust:   The Best Way To accelerate a Macintoy is at 9.8m/s^2
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 23:42:17 EDT
From: Charles Fee <CXF111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Maybe a new news group

In article <1992Apr16.013543.22453@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
adingus@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Aaron T Dingus) says:
>
>     Maybe there should be a new newsgroup set up.
>We could call it comp.sys.windows.os2.argument.  The sole
>purpose of the newsgroup will be for os2 and windows people
>to yell at one another.
>     Also, once a year, we could have a big rumble, where
>we give the windows NT people sticks and the Os2 people
>rocks and have them duel. Or maybe guns would be better.
>    One of these two environments/operating systems is
>going to survive the test of time.  It won't be the best
>one.  It will be the one that is purchased the most often,
>and ergo, on more people's desks.
>     Does anyone honestly think that calling it "NoS2" or
>"windoze" serves a purpose?  It makes all of you grown men
>look like children on the school yard.
>     So if you want to get on here, whether you are a
>windows person or an os2 person, and bitch about whatever,
>maybe you should take it "outside" and let this newsgroup
>be used for something productive.

hopefully after the OS/2 reorganization occurs, the flamage can make its way
to comp.os.os2.advocacy, assuming it passes. This would cut the signal to
noise ratios in both the windows and os2 hierachies down to almost zero, and
it could be debated, flamed, etc in .advocacy  I have had one hell of a time
trying to weed through the flamage to find any useful information in both
groups, but especially in  comp.windows.ms
---
Charles A. Fee                           I'd Rather Be FTPing...
cxf111@psuvm.psu.edu
From: wg@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Bill Gieske)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: DRDOS 6.0 and WIN 3.1
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:50:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Mar25.151232.6786@DMI.USherb.CA> trepe00@terre.DMI.USherb.CA (Eric Trepanier) writes:
>In article <1992Mar25.011418.15808@den.mmc.com> rarmstro@bigsky.den.mmc.com (Richard Armstrong) writes:
>>
>>I am torked off because it seems to me that Microsoft
>>deliberately made win3.1 incompatible with DRDOS6.0.
>
>Will you quit the whining already!!!
>
>Microsoft owes NOTHING to DR-DOS users.  Its loyalty is to MS-DOS user ONLY!!!
>It's Digital Research's job to make sure their OS _IS_ compatible with
>Windows 3.1 AND NOT THE OPPOSITE!!!
>
>Incidently, Win 3.1 is not the only program to have compatibility problems
>with DR-DOS.

Imcompatibility with popular software is nothing new with DR-DOS.  I got
DR-DOS (earlier version) with a PC kit three years ago, and found it to
be incompatible with WordPerfect Library software (a big seller then).
Yet, the same software worked fine with DOS 3.1 and 4.01.  It still works
now with 5.0!  IMHO, DR-DOS does not test for 100% compatibility, never
has, and maybe never will.

Bill Gieske
AT&T Bell Laboratories
wg@alux2.att.com
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:12650 alt.cad.autocad:511
From: ab0kfc@gdt.bath.ac.uk (K F Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,alt.cad.autocad
Subject: WFW+EXCEL+ACAD
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:53:58 GMT
Organization: School of Architecture, University of Bath, UK

Any one can tell me how to import pictures from EXCEL 3+ and 
ACADr.10 to Words for Windows 1.1a ???

I've install the ACAD ADI filter but my ACAD drawings still
couldn't get through. It seems sensible to me that the WFW
does not need a filter to EXCEL because they belongs to the
same family. But YYY couldn't they get through ??

Many thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------
K.F.CHOW                         ab0kfc@uk.ac.bath.sl1
School of Architecture           ab0kfc@uk.ac.bath.gdt
Bath University.
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Mr. Linville and kill files
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 08:47:26 GMT

Mr Linville writes...

>I haven't originated any of the threads here.  If I see something that I
>consider disinformation, or if I see a question about OS/2 that I can 
>answer,  I will post.

>John  Linville ... 

You (singular, now) still fail to see the point John.  POST ALL YOU 
WANT ABOUT OS2.  SIMPLY DO IT WHERE IT BELONGS.

Let's take it real slow so you can understand it.

1.  Post your thoughts about Windows disinformation or Windows 
questions you can answer in...think hard now and pay attention ... 
comp.windows.ms   .

2.  Post your thoughts about any other information, disinformation, or 
whatever in...now here you'll really have to think hard... in whatever 
group is most appropriate.  [I know this one will be hard as there are 
so many possibilities, but try.]

One good thing about Mr. Linville.  He's driven me to learn about kill 
files and I'll be implementing one today if all works well.  I suggest 
the rest of the world start doing the same.

John Garland
jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: TrueType Fonts
Date: 7 Apr 1992 16:16:16 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

I remember from when cica was available that they had some truetype
fonts.  Does anyone know of an FTP source for fonts that is available
today?  Has anyone uploaded newly converted fonts?

Please post, as I am sure many are interested.

thanks
mike polen
From: jbreeden@netcom.com (John Breeden)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: MS/HP win Apple suit!
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:14:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Somewhere in the S.F. Bay Area

In article <53282@mimsy.umd.edu> pr@umiacs.umd.edu (Jesus Rodriguez) writes:
>BOO HISS Microsoft :-(  Apple should have won that suit!

no way, Xerox SHOULD have won (and Jobs should have payed out of his own
pocket).
-- 

 John Robert Breeden, Hughes Lan Systems
          jbreeden@kailua.hls.com, johnb@hls.com, jbreeden@netcom.com

 ------------------- cut here and you'll break your monitor -------------------

      "The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose 
      from. If you don't like any of them, you just wait for next year's 
      model."
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger)
Subject: Re: Adlib under Win 3.1?!?!?!?
Organization: Schlumberger Technologies, ATE division, San Jose, Ca.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 20:26:09 GMT

martin@patricia.verfahrenstechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Martin Hepperle) writes:
: In article <hstj7s=@lynx.unm.edu> cvance@vesta.unm.edu (Chad Vance) writes:
: >What is the Adlib driver under Windows 3.1 usefor if you can't use
: >the .wav files?  WHy can a SIMPLE built in PC speaker use the .wav
: >files but the Adlib can't?  I don't get it!  
: >
: >Or am I installing the Adlib driver wrong?  HELP!!!!
: >
: >		Hasta,
: >			Chad
: >
: 
: The original AdLib has offers no possibility to output or record
: samples. It only has a synthesizer chipset and can output sound
: (aka music) generated by this synthesizer.
: The Soundblaster differs from the Adlib board in having an additional
: DAC chip which can output sampled sounds (plus an ADC to record
: samples).
: So: If you have an Adlib board you cannot record or output wave files,
: because they contain nothing but sampled data. You can use MIDI files
: only.
: 
: BTW. The Microsoft speaker driver seems to be limited to a sample length
: of 64 kB. Maybe they better should have hired Aaron Wallace or have
: licenzed his DSOUND.DLL  :-)
: 
: Martin.

I go caught up in all this sound stuff, so I decided what the heck, and got a
ThunderBoard. It claims to be both SB and Adlib compatible. So far, no
problems with Windows (plays .wav files) or DOS games. They have a new version
with software just for windows (3.1 compatible even) including a talking
calendar, and text -> speech application (under windows!).

Russ Poffenberger               DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies       UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen
1601 Technology Drive		CIS:	72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110             Voice: (408)437-5254  FAX: (408)437-5246
From: linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Review
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:29:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog

In article <1992Apr10.093842.1@tesla.njit.edu> fer9483@tesla.njit.edu writes:
>> 
>> So far I have had the same type of problems and joys you have.  It didn't
>> upgrade my 7.05 microsoft mouse to the 8.20 that is on the install disks
>> so I had to do it myself.  I copied the new .com .sys .drv files to the
>> windows and system directories.  I didn't change the mouse settings in the
>> system ini file so maybe I missed something.  I'm not sure why they
>> have a 8.20 driver on the disk and don't install it.
>> 
>
>Same here.. it never touched the mouse driver, but it DID remove my old one,
>just never got around to decompressing the one that came with it.  No big deal
>though.

That would be a big deal to a novice user.  Sounds like a bug to me.

John W. Linville


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: dudley@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (alfred.d.overbey)
Subject: Re: Would I upgrade to Win3.1?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:59:27 GMT
Summary: problems with WIN-3.1


After upgrading from WIN3.0 to WIN3.1, the programs that communicate with
the serial COM ports, doesn't.  Reading through the MS-Resource Kit, still 
no help.  After speaking to a MS-WIN tech for a goo 45 mins. my long distance
charge, still no help.  

Any help, suggestions, or comments would be a great help.....
Email:  dudley@hosv1.att.com   or   att!hosv1!dudley

Thanks
Dudley
From: ehunt@bsc835bsc.edu (Eric Hunt)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Windows 3.1 and communications
Keywords: win 3.1 comm program slow slow slow
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:51:17 GMT
Organization: Lost in Space

Folks, I'm disappointed.

I fired up Windows 3.1 last night, loaded my usual stuff (Drwatson,
Imposter, Launch!) and then loaded SPEED Read 1.2b in a DOS Window, and
then loaded Telemate 2.11 in another DOS window. I gave SPEED settings such
that it was given no CPU time when minimized, and gave Telemate background
and foreground CPU times of 100 each. The machine itself is a Zeos 386sx-16
with 4megs of RAM. I've got 12megs of virtual memory, and running a 1meg
smartdrv.exe cache. 32bit virtual memory access is turned on, as both
drives are new quantum IDE drives (45 and 105 megs each).

I went into the control panel and told it to bump COM2 up to 19.2k.

I called a BBS at V.32 speeds with a comm speed in Telemate of 9.6 and
performed an upload. The average CPS was 270. This speed remained constant.
Even when I had Alt-entered the DOS window to fullscreen, the cps stayed
at 270.

Something is dreadfully wrong. I would get 500cps under Windows 3.0.

Any clues out there in netland? Email responses. If you have to send it
to matrix.sbs.com, it'll take 3 days for me to get it, as that's a BBS.     
THANKS!
-- 
Eric Hunt
Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com
From: wucm@dc.luth.se (Wu Changming)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Question about Equation Editor in W4W 2.0 ???
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: <wucm@>
Organization: University of Lulea, Sweden


 When I use Equation Editor in W4W 2.0 writing a matrix equation, it leaves
 me a lot of space above the equation, and I can not remove it. Anyone can 
 help me?
 
 Thanks.
 
 Wu Changming
 wucm@gb.luth.se
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: pr@wam.umd.edu (Jesus M. Rodriguez)
Subject: :-)
Originator: pr@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:06:55 GMT




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