HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arakins@iastate.edu (Andrew R Akins)
Subject: Re: PC is cheaper than MAC (Yeah, right.)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:57:31 GMT


  ResEdit is perhaps better than Resourse Workshop. However,
that is only because Resourse Workshop CANNOT affect DOS
files, because they don't use resourses.

  However, Resourse Workshop can do ALMOST everthing that
ResEdit can do - on a Windows program. It all depends on
if the program in question uses standard resourses. If it
does - you can change Icons, Bitmaps, Menus, Dialog
Boxes, Controls, etc...

  What pisses me off is the programs that do self checking
so that if you change a resourse, the program doesn't run.
I don't see whay that is neccessary. I enjoy changing
all of the menu entries to stupid things, like Kill for
delete or Create for new.

  Oh well...

-- Andy Akins
   Iowa State University
   arakins@iastate.edu
From: jm@dhmoell.uucp (Joerg Moellenhoff)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Equations and bibliography in WFW et al.
Keywords: all in short..
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:28:02 CES
Organization: Joerg Moellenhoff

petrovic@WATSON.IBM.COM writes:

> Can anyone address either of these two questions regarding Word for
> Windows or WordPerfect for Windows:

>         1) compared to TeX or LaTeX          NO ! Only few formulas

>         2) is there a functional equivalent of BibTeX         NO

But all people try to work with WfW, WP4W, Ami and so on. If you have to
write much formulas in your text there is nothing equivalent to TeX.

Bye joerg

--
J"org M"ollenhoff
<jm%dhmoell@ovum.ka.sub.org> ----------- Punk's not dead, eh ! Use Windows...
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: impster@ais.org (Charles Budensiek)
Subject: Setting up a '286 clone for max perf.
Summary: What should I put in my config.sys and autoexec.bat files? 
Organization: UMCC
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 06:23:10 GMT

I have a 80286 PC clone with the following stats:

1 meg of memory
BOIS and VIDEO Shadow RAM capabilities
40 meg hard drive
16 MHz clock speed

Now, what exactly should I put in my config.sys and autoexec.bat files to
maximize the performance of windows 3.1?

impster@ais.org

P.S. I know I know... get a '386. I just don't feel like wasting $1000 for a
     faster toy when the one I have does what I want it to.

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 05:23:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

After spending half the evening trying to get OS/2 to know about the
modem card that's been on com3 of one of my machines for a lonnnng time
talking to you all, I know full well why OS/2 ain't goin nowhere.  It's
great but it sucks if you don't have a guru or the internet.  I'm doin'
this from DOS 'cause I have to.  It is a corporate operating system.
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
From: dvesely@alcor.concordia.ca ( DAVID F VESELY )
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: >> Windows 3.1 in Canada yet?
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:24:04 GMT

Yes, the store where I work received a shipment of it yesterday (thurs).

I havn't received my upgrade though 8-<
From: scdorcy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: NoS/2 shipping yet?
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:08:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims01.6APR199215082157
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <moore.702438473@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu>, moore@iastate.edu 
(Brian J Moore) writes...
>In <1992Apr4.223419.18433@access.usask.ca> lowey@jester.usask.ca 
(Kevin Lowey,159 Physics,(306) 966-4826,(306) 249-3232) writes:
> 
>>I've ordered my OS/2 upgrade as well.  Wow, both companies let you
>>ORDER the programs.  I guess its a race to get the product into our
>>hands now.  By the way, my upgrade from OS/2 1.3 to OS/2 2.0 cost me
>>nothing.  How much did Microshaft bilk you for Windoze?
> 
>If you paid money for 1.3 you deserve something for free :)
> 
>I got 3.0 free so I don't mind paying this time...

What a deal!  I paid over $2,500 (US) for my copy of Windows 3.0.

(However, it did come with a free 386 system :) )

By the way - Gateway 2000 owners:

If you haven't sent your money to Redmond, WA yet for Win 3.1, call 
Gateway's Add-On department if you're interested in 3.1.  You may be in for 
a pleasant surprise.
From: chaolin@fcit-m1.fcit.monash.edu.au (CHAOLIN CHANG)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: HELP! Cannot access Fence TT font @!#&
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:50:06 GMT
Organization: Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, Monash University

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP

In order to use euqation editor in W2W 2.0, Fence font is essential.
I can see the Fence font (True type) appears in the Fonts of control panel,
but I can not access it.  I change to different printer driver, Deskjet Plus,
DeskJet serier v2.1, and LaserJet series II.  I reintall W2W equation editor 
more than n times.  None of them works.  

This really kills me.
I cannot go any further on my thesis which heavily uses the euqtion editor.

I would greatly appreciate any of your help.



Chaolin
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Bugs - Threat or Menace?
Keywords: windows 3.1 bug
Organization: Academic Information Resources
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 19:03:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.170116.20331@sura.net> vargish@sura.net (Nicholas Vargish) writes:
>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.

I should have caught the original.  Yes, WfS 1.x doesn't work with
3.1.  ("Unreliable" is putting it nicely.)  Well, it kindof works,
until there's a multiline messagebox or any one of a whole bunch of
other things happen.  WfS does a lot of run-time kernel patching to
"hook" various events, and addresses and such changed under 3.1.
There will be an upgrade (it went to the duplicators this Saturday...)
from Aristosoft.

I would never consider this a 3.1 "deficiency" given the way the WfS
hooks work...

Aaron Wallace

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:16:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.175441.17203@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.171421.17859@alw.nih.gov> donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:
>>But what about the fact that Microsoft and Borland have sold more Window's
>>development packages (SDK, C++ for Windows, Visual Basic, Turbo Pascal for
>>Windows, QuickC for Windows etc...) than there are copies of OS/2 (all
>>versions) in use.
>
>But what about the fact that all of these packages still only produce 16-bit 
>code that runs in an unprotected, non-preemptive environment?

Geez, WHO CARES?  If the apps get my job done, I'm happy.  You can
qvetch all you want to about the flaws in Windows - I've never had the
major problems that you seem to think are inherent in running Windows,
while the current relase of OS/2 is the first one that I think is
worth even bothering with.  And yes, I've seen the earlier versions.
Given the paucity of applications, I've always considered it to be a
total waste of time.

Well, *IF* OS/2 2.0 lives up to it's billing, it will be the first
version worth buying.  That assumes, of course, that I can find
drivers for all the stuff that I currently have DOS and Windows
drivers for.  For $50, even if it becomes shelfware I'll take a look at
it.  But I will do that DESPITE, not BECAUSE of obnoxious OS/2 bigots
like you.

Frankly, I'd like to get two copies; one to check out and one to break
your hands with so we can GET A BREAK FROM ALL THE OS/2 CRAP IN THE
*WINDOWS* NEWSGROUPS.

You *MUST* have owned an Amiga before you 'discovered' OS/2.  Amigoids
and the radical OS/2 bigots like you are the only people I've ever
seen who are THIS obnoxious about what THEY are using.

>
>John W. Linville
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
>|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Speak.exe  - Where??? 
From: copleyd@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:21:24 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

  ddennis@isis.cs.du.edu (Dave Dennis) writes:
> I don't have a sound card, and I hear that speak.exe will run 3.1
> .wav sounds through the pc speaker.  A previous post said the file
> was at Wustl.... but the the path he gave was /MSDOS_UPLOADS/speak.exe.
> I'll be darned if I can find that path on Wustl!
> 
> Our version of Archie doesn't show it anywhere.  Ideas?
 
try /pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS 
     ^^^
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:05:08 GMT

In article <44908@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> sexonbd@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Benjamin David Sexson (Ben)) writes:
>He has a good question.  Which is better Windows 3.1 and DOS 5.0
>or OS/2 2.0.  OS/2 has many advantages from what I know, but Windows
>has the Apps behind it.  My question is when will someone make an OS
>for the Intel chip in assembly language.  I don't have the 15 to 30 MB
>it takes for OS/2 and I barley have the system for Windows.  I wonder if
>Geoworks would make an OS and more Apps. If they would I would probably 
>switch.

The idea that Windows has more apps for it than OS/2 2.0 is pure
Micosoft FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).  With very few exceptions
(Mathmatica being the most notable for its use of VCPI instead of DMPI,
although they are correcting this as we speak) every one of your Windows
programs will RUN UNDER OS/2!  Add to that all the OS/2 native apps (and
there really are OS/2 native apps...) by definition OS/2 has more
applications behind it.  Not to mention the fact that it fully supports
the complete range of DOS programs as well (again, with very few
exceptions).  It is just mindboggling that folks will parrot the
Micorsoft line (I'm not acusing YOU of doing this, this is NOT intended
to be a flame, I promise) without thinking about what they are saying.
I am not one of those folks who says OS/2 is the only way to go.
But if you have a computer which is capable of supporting it, and you
don't even try it out, then I have little time to waste trying to
convince you. (that's the editorial you, not you in particular)

And what REALLY bugs me, what really ticks me off is the people who bad
mouth OS/2 and then tout the praises of NT.  Give me a break...  NT
isn't even VAPORWARE yet but OS/2 is here today and makes much more
sense (for me) than the DOS/Windows combo.  That is the comparison which
needs to be made, not the OS/2 - NT comparison.


>					Ben Sexson
>I would request any flames through e-mail, and any intelligent responses
>through the news.  I am open to different opinions.
>					sexonbd@sage.cc.purdue.edu

	-Phil
From: ridge@srcvax.cem.msu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Excel 4.0 review
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:12:40 GMT
Reply-To: ridge@srcvax.cem.msu.edu
Organization: MSU_Chemistry

Fellas have you heard?  Anybody have reviews of Excel 4.0?? Is it 
going to be out soon??  I am specifically interested in the enhanced 
graphing capabilities(like error bars).  Can it put supers and 
subscripts in the chart title, axes titles, etc...  

Please send any comments and I will organize them into one large 
review.  Thank you.

Ridge@cemvax.cem.msu.edu
ridge@period.cem.msu.edu
ridge@msucem
From: Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Gates - Comdex - Windows 3.1
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 13:54:01 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

I agree. The joke about bugs in Boca Raton was good! The only people not 
laughing were the IBM'ers there.

To all those who did not see it, try and get a copy of the satellite
transmission. Or listen to the tapes that the Interface Group made (over
22,000 tapes are out there!).

Renee Roberts
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: petes@kaila.ifsm.umbc.edu (Peter C. Schuyler)
Subject: Windows -> Novell -> NFS
Keywords: nfs windows novell
Reply-To: petes@umbc3.umbc.edu
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:16:22 GMT

Hello,
	Scenaro:

	We have a IBM pC connected to a Novel 3.11 server which are both  
connected to a Campus TCP/IP Backbone.  We have Novell NFS.nlm loaded which  
allows the Novell server to redirect novell print queus to Unix print queues.   
This allows us to print postscript files from a pc application to the novell  
queue which then spools it of to a NeXT LaserWriter.  Now , We have setup  
windows to have the Novell-NFS queue as lpt.  This should allow us to print  
windows file driectly to our Unix Postscript Printer.  The flow WORKS!!!, but  
we are receiving the file as ascii text, for the following reason.  It is  
sending a ^D a the begining of the file, but the postscript language has a  
specila first line, which the printer doesn't see because of this tacked on ^D.   
If ANYONE has a suggestion on how I can get rid of this ^D, send mail to

---
	Peter C. Schuyler
     	Information Systems
     	University of Maryland - Baltimore County
     	5401 Wilkens Ave, Baltimore , MD 21228
     	USA
  
       	Phone     :  (410) 455 2648
     	Internet  :  petes@kaila.ifsm.umbc.edu (NeXT)
    
"No" simply means begin at one level higher

      
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: ddennis@isis.cs.du.edu (Dave Dennis)
Subject: Speak.exe  - Where??? 
Summary: Where is this program?
Keywords: Speak
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:56:21 GMT

I don't have a sound card, and I hear that speak.exe will run 3.1
.wav sounds through the pc speaker.  A previous post said the file
was at Wustl.... but the the path he gave was /MSDOS_UPLOADS/speak.exe.
I'll be darned if I can find that path on Wustl!

Our version of Archie doesn't show it anywhere.  Ideas?

Dave
--
|Dave Dennis  (ddennis@nyx.cs.du.edu) |
|"Ilegitimi non carborundum"          |
From: gt3791a@prism.gatech.EDU (JOHNSON)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Fix for DeskJet 500 Driver Problem (Win 3.1)
Summary: First install old DeskJet 500 Scalable driver
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:08:30 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

For those who did not see my somewhat irratic posting earlier:  I installed
the new Windows 3.1 in a new directory recently (instead of overwriting 
Windows 3.0).  When I installed the HP DeskJet 500 driver that came with it,
I couldn't get anything but garbage to print.  Needless to say I was quite
frustrated.  Well, with a bit a help, I think I've found the solution.

In order to get the new HP DeskJet 500 driver to work in Windows 3.1,
you must first install the Windows 3.0 DeskJet 500 Scalable driver.
(I don't believe this driver came with Win 3.0 but could be had from HP.)
Once this driver is installed, then install the HP DeskJet 500 driver that
came with Windows 3.1.  From that point on it should work just fine (even
with the True Type fonts).

					Hope this helps!

-- 
						M. Johnson       ///
							    __  ///
Department of Chemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology    \\\///AMIGA!
Internet: gt3791a@prism.gatech.edu			     \XX/
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: FAXing from MSWIN
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date: 16 APR 92 17:29:31 EST


>I have a fax/modem called Internal Super Modem 2400
>and fax software called Quick  Link II version 3.0
>I haven't managed to make it work from a dos shell in Windows 3.0
>(The modem is set up as Com3)  I was hoping there was a
>Windows FAX application out there that I could use with
>my modem and avoid the problem altogether. Does anyones
>FAX package list this modem as usable with it?

I have been using WINFAX Pro by Delrina under W3.0 with my Everex FaxModem
24/96 and I like it and recommend it.

Regards,
Steve.

/*********************************************************************
*                               *                                    *
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed   *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and do not neccessarily *
* Specializing in:              * reflect those of my clients,       *
* DEC/VAX/VMS/ULTRIX, Unix & PC * employers or employees             *
*                               *                                    *
**********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org                             *
* FidoNet 1:101/440 (508) 664-6354                                   *
* The Contract Professional BBS, North Reading, MA                   *
*********************************************************************/
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: SMARTDRV 4.0 weirdness
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:03:11 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

ehunt@bsc835bsc.edu (Eric Hunt) writes:

> In article <1992Apr8.201752.14754@news.Hawaii.Edu>, lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.e
> >   Re: the new smartdrv,  does anyone know how to set the max.
> > cache size (eats up 2 megs on mine!).  I've read the manual and
> 
> The same way you did with the old smartdrv.sys
> The line in my autoexec.bat reads:
> c:\windows\smartdrv 1024 1024
> 
> and I get a 1meg cache inside and outside of Windows 3.1 now.

I set mine up the same way, but disabled the write caching, so I
ended up with:

c:\win\smartdrv a c f 1024       (no B drive and D is a Stacker drive)
                                 (E is a ram disk)

The Windows Resource Kit has a nice little Smartdrv monitor program.
It always shows a hit ratio up above 90%, so I suspect giving
Smartdrv more than that is a waste of memory for me. Keep in mind
that with Stacker the cache effectively holds a lot more data,
since it is the compressed data that is cached.

(If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
From: tar@pa.reuter.COM (Dan Tarnower)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Resource Kit - is this useful?
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:02:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Reuter:file Inc  (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA

In <1992Apr13.200459.24574@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.181441.6133@sequent.com> rbk@sequent.com (Bob Beck) writes:
>>I got my official Windows 3.1 upgrade over the weekend, installed fine.  A
>>bunch of advertising came with it, and one part is for the "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?

>If Windows 3.1 is so easy to use and configure, then why does Microsoft think
>that we need to spend $20 on a package to help us figure out how to configure
>it?  This is user-friendliness?

>John W. Linville

My office got a copy of the Resource Kit, and I find it very useful.  I am
going to order another office copy, and possibly one for my home.

The "kit" comes with a utility disk, that, while it isn't earth shattering,
has a couple of nice functions.  The 2 I find useful are TOPDESK and the
Novell Accessories.  The TOPDESK gives you "virtual screens".  You can
spread out your applications so they stay maximized, but don't overlap.
The Novell function gives you the ability to map drives during the 
windows session.  Other utils are a bitmap viewer/wallpaper installer,
a resource/memory meter, and a Smartdrv monitor.

The rest of the "kit" is a well prepared book that de-mystifies much of
Windows's internals in a surprisingly non-overly technical fashion.

It begins with many trouble shooting flowcharts that are referred to
by subsequent sections of the book.

It has lots of tips for configuring, tuning and trouble shooting Windows.

And the Appendicies have lots of information about hardware/software
compatibilities, and how to deal with known problems  It lists addresses
phone numbers (BBS as well), of software companies, and user groups.

And as far as so called "user-friendliness".  The reality is that
computers have a level of complexity that no interface can fully
eliminate.  As long as different people have different system
configurations, different needs, and just the right to have things
the way they want, individual configuration is required.

John, you could go off on your own, and build a complicated environment,
and try to sell it to people with the promise that it would only work
on one hardware/software configuration of your choosing, and they can
only use your choices of operation.  However, I don't think you'll make
much of a living at it.

Anyway, flame off.  I highly recommend the Windows Resource Kit.  It is
a useful reference aid.

/Dan Tarnower