HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decouty@irisa.fr (Bertrand Decouty, AB112, [99 84] 73 46, Atelier)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Re: Difference between Wingz 1.1a and 1.1b?
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:20:36 GMT
Reply-To: decouty@irisa.fr
Organization: IRISA-INRIA, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes Cedex, FRANCE

In article 733@gn.ecn.purdue.edu, jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
>What's this about Wingz 1.1b?  I am a registered user of Wingz and I have
>not heard a thing about it.  I would also like to know the differences
>between 1.1a and 1.1b.
>
>Jess Holle


No problem: i have 1.1b for OpenWindows

From memory:
You can print into a file, center your data or add a border
you can save a selection into eps or epsi or text format. EPS or EPSI
are fine with FrameMaker (and probably with other  publishing software)
but EPS give you better results. EPSI includes a preview image
You can auto-save
you can save in SYLK

Doc is the same than 1.1/1.1a

Bertrand Decouty
---
| Bertrand DECOUTY             | EMAIL : Bertrand.Decouty@IRISA.fr                |
| IRISA - INRIA (Atelier)      |         {uunet,mcsun,inria}!irisa!decouty        |
| Campus de Beaulieu           | PHONE : +33  99 84 73 46                         |
| F-35042 Rennes Cedex - FRANCE| FAX   : +33  99 38 38 32 | TELEX: 950473 UNIRISA |
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
From: vamatya@watserv1.waterloo.edu (AMATYA VB - SYSTEMS DESIGN )
Subject: Memory addressing in lotus123/3.1
Keywords: EMM386.syss etc.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:40:57 GMT


Hi! friends

This is regarding my problem with EMM386.SYS of MSDOS 5.0

While starting computer with noems option lotus-123 v3.1 can 
not load on itself

with ram option in place of noems with EMM386.sys Lotus 123 loads
but can not address the extended memory. I run out of memory even
with modest size of spreadsheet. /ws shows about 450 kilobytes

Only solution I have is to boot computer without EMM396.sys, but then 
some of my other program refuses to start for insufficient  conventional
memory. Thus, switching config.sys file is what I have been doing.
This is of course not the best answer or way to do. /ws shows more than 
3000 KB. 

Does any of you have had similar problem? and have worked a way out.
If so can you help me in this matter. May be a copy of your config.sys 
and autoexec.bat file can be helpful. 

Thanking you in advance

Vishwa
vamatya@watserv1
From: moconnor@pms704.pms.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Difference between Wingz 1.1a and 1.1b?
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:53:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: fmsrl7.1992Apr7.125331.23042
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
Organization: "Fordz"
X-Disclaimer: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Co.


Anyone have a canonical list of the differences between Wingz 1.1a and 1.1b?

						...Mike

-- 
 Mike O'Connor                     |  Ford Motor Company, USA
 Applications Systems Analyst      |  CPD P&MS ECC Core Software
 Phone #:  +1 (313) 390-4008       |  P.O. Box 2053, ECC MD-7
 Fax #:    +1 (313) 845-0576       |  Dearborn, MI  48121-2053
From: fetrow@biostat.washington.edu (David Fetrow)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Analyticalc Users
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:48:37 GMT
Organization: Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle
Originator: fetrow@orac.biostat.washington.edu


 With all the references to Lotus, Excel and Quattro I was wondering
if anyone is using Analyticalc (or oleo for that matter) in a serious
way?

-- 
 -dave					   fetrow@biostat.washington.edu

"C is the Fortran of the 90's."   "Wrong.  C is the Fortran of the 70's."
                         -- Norman Diamond (diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com)
From: andrew@deakin.OZ.AU (Andrew Cerasuolo)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Help with Quattro pro macros.
Date: 15 Apr 92 06:41:14 GMT
Organization: Faculty of Science Workshop, Deakin Uni, AUSTRALIA.

Can some one help me with some problems I'm having with macros with Quattro
Pro V3 ?.
I'm trying to make a macro so that when I type lots of numbers I don't have to type a key except return. The macro's below are what I have attempted so far but would like them to be neater so that anything than a number or cursor key gets out of the macro.
 
1) automatic down : \d {?}{d}{branch \d}
2) automatic right : \r {?}{r}{branch \r}

The only way out is with ctrl-break.

Also is there any good book(s) on writing macros with good examples for Quattro pro v3 ?

Any help would be appreciated,
Ciao.
--
Andrew Cerasuolo               The above comments are mine solely and not that
Faculty of Science Workshop    of Deakin University.
Deakin University
Vic 3217, Australia            andrew@deakin.OZ.AU
From: v105mahs@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Peter P. Donohue)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Re: Memory addressing in lotus123/3.1
Keywords: EMM386.syss etc.
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:25:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr7.054057.14803@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, vamatya@watserv1.waterloo.edu (AMATYA VB - SYSTEMS DESIGN ) writes...
>This is regarding my problem with EMM386.SYS of MSDOS 5.0
> 
>While starting computer with noems option lotus-123 v3.1 can 
>not load on itself
> 
>with ram option in place of noems with EMM386.sys Lotus 123 loads
>but can not address the extended memory. I run out of memory even
>with modest size of spreadsheet. /ws shows about 450 kilobytes
   My machine is a ALR 386 33mhz with 5 meg of ram.  I am running
DOS 5 and use Lotus 3.1+ (WYSIWYG version).  My config.sys contains 
the lines:
	device=c:\dos\himem.sys
	device=c:\dos\emm386.exe 4096 ram
	dos=high,umb
	...
   I performed a /WS in Lotus and it says that I have somewheres about 
4 meg free (without any files loaded, I have 96% of resources free; with
a small worksheet, it drops to 95%).

				Pete

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter P. Donohue - University at Buffalo, Graduate School of Management
bitnet:   V105MAHS@UBVMS                  .  "Education is a journey
internet: V105MAHS@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU   .    not a destination..."
From: jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Wingz scripting
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:54:28 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Does anyone feel very comfortable with Wingz scripting?  I have dabbled in
this to some degree, but I have a couple of major areas of 
concern/confusion:

  1)  Is there any good clean way of passing a whole section of the
      spreadsheet to an external function (C, Pascal, etc) on the Mac?

  2)  Is there any way to write a script to accurately add error bars to
      a graph, make box graphs, or other graph types that are not built
      in?

I realize that many of you who read this will not be able to comment 
directly on #1, since it is somewhat platform specific, but if you can
do it on your platform, the techique may give me some ideas.  Also, any
books, ftp sites, etc. that contain information on Wingz scripting would
be greatly appreciated.  Finally, are there any improvements w.r.t. (1)
and (2) that I should know about that are expected in the next version?

Part of the reason I bought Wingz were the neat demo scripts that the 
saleperson demonstrated (a program drawing a 3D Star Trek Enterprise, 
another projecting forest growth cycles with given pollution and climate 
patterrns, and another dealing w/ real estate).  I like the scripting
abilities, but I would like more documentation/examples and more support
for (1) and (2).

Jess Holle
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 16:53:49 EDT
From: <F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Excel 4.0 upgrade

   Just received in the mail today a package from Microsoft explaining
Excel 4.0, and allowing you to update for $99.  From what I could see, there
doesn't seem to be a great deal of new things for me to part with $99.
   I have heard that they have improved the macro language a good deal.
Does anyone know if this is true?  Does anyone out there have a list of
all the new features of Excel 4.0?

                                                              [Tim]
From: sjain@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Sanghursh Jain)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Pubic Domain Spreadsheet
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:39:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Hi,

	I am looking for a public domain Spreadsheet program
	which preferably authorizes small modifications to its 
	code. 

	Please send replies by email to :

	vic@green.cooper.edu   

	Thank you.
From: tuceryan@istanbul.cps.msu.edu (Mihran Tuceryan)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: Histogramming in Excel
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:48:22 GMT
Followup-To: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Organization: Michigan State University, CPS Department


How does one get a histogram of a column in Excel 3.0?
I looked at the manual and the word histogram was not even in the
index.

Mihran
From: ossian@comlab.gatech.edu (Ossian Gillebert)
Newsgroups: comp.apps.spreadsheets
Subject: seeking sources and FTP sites
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:36:48 GMT
Reply-To: ossian@comlab.gatech.edu (Ossian Gillebert)
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

--

     * USENET: ossian@comlab.gatech.edu | Ph 1-706-532-5015 U.S.A.*

   ***     Ni/or dhu/n Dia doras riamh nar oscal Se/ cean eile.  ***
From: ernest@suntan.tandem.com.AU (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Roger E Billings and File Server Patent
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:55:07 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers, Inc.


It looks like my original post got lost so here it is again ...  Anyone have
any idea if this patent is as broad as the newspaper says?

[mod:- Hmm.. My records say this was posted... anyway here it
is again...]
---------- Posted earlier ----------

In the San Jose Mercury News, Wednesday, March 11, 1992, Section F:

Apparently, this guy named Roger E. Billings claims that he invented the 
File Server concept and patented it (4,714,989).  The patent was granted
in December 1987 (applied for in February 1982).  He claims he did most 
of his work during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Is this guy for real?  How can the concept of a file server be patented?
I mean, how about, if I patent the special way I walk across the street,
or the way I sit on my chair.  Heck, I bet no one has patented that one.

This patent system is getting way out of hand.  Client-server ideas have
been around long before computers were invented.

I think I will write a free DOS file server just to spite him.

Ern
--
Ernest Hua, Associate Design Engineer                         ernest@tandem.com
Tandem Computers, 19333 Vallco Parkway, Cupertino, CA  95014       408-285-5580
From: breiing@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: The future of comp.patents
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:42:23 GMT
Organization: RBI - RWTH Aachen
Originator: breiing@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de

In <4656@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> sps@email.sp.unisys.com (Steven P. Skabrat) writes:


>  Call it capitalistic greed, conservatism, whatever.  But
>thats what the United States copyright and patent systems are based on.
>Its worked for over 200 years and look where our country is
>technologically because of it. 

The U.S. has probably the number one position in computer software,
and it got there *without* software patents. I think that is an
impressive point in favour of applying the copyright (rather that
patent) system to software. It isn't broke; then why try fix it,
especially when there's serious doubts about the proposed "fix?"
From: 0001811496@mcimail.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Arrhythmia v. Corazonix
Date: 8 Apr 92 09:31:16 GMT

Someone recently posted a message mentioning a recent case decided by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Arrhythmia v. Corazonix
(March 12, 1992, 1992 US App Lexis 4202).
 
Thank you, whoever it was.
 
I wrote an article published today (April 6, 1992) discussing the case.
 
Briefly, in the article I observe that while most CAFC cases to date have 
arisen during prosecution of a patent application, this one is perhaps the 
first in which the case reached the CAFC as a result of litigation where 
the issue was patentable subject matter.
 
An accused infringer filed a motion in federal District Court asking that 
the patent be held invalid as not directed to patentable subject matter.
The accused infringer argued the patent covered an algorithm merely.  The
District Court agreed, and granted the motion.
 
On appeal, the CAFC reversed the finding of invalidity.
 
The opinion discusses many of the often-cited cases about algorithms and
patenting software, and the way I read it, the case comes out strengthening
the situation for those who want to patent systems containing software.
 
In a footnote I mention comp.patents as an active forum for discussion 
on this and related topics.
 
Anybody who would like a copy of the article, please send a postal 
address.
 
Carl Oppedahl
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228

[mod- hmm, Maybe a post would be good...]
From: ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: response
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:12:09 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]


In <4611@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:

>mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) writes:
>+---------------
>| >I have a specific case to ask about.  This week the LPF has been posting
>| >messages about patent 4,783,761.  This covers a particular spelling check
>| >technique for a word processor.
>|
>| How are command completion systems like that built into emacs or tcsh
>| excluding from infringing on this patent claim?
>+---------------
>
>Prior art. BBN TENEX (later incorporated into DEC's TOPS-20) was doing
>command completion essentially identical to emacs or tcsh way back in the
>early 1970's. I'm not saying TENEX was first, understand, just that it
>predates patent 4,783,761 by more than a decade.


 Alas, "prior art" is a technical term under patent law.  Just
 as a "RISC" processor need not necessarily be as "reduced" (as
 the name might imply), "prior art" does not necessarily refer
 to "earlier equivalent work."   Although prior work *can* be
 "prior art," various other conditions must be met:


 First, the date:  The issue date of a patent is not the same
 as the legally provable date of invention; usually the date
 of invention is years earlier.  We would have to know the
 current inventor's date of invention, and this is not
 normally available short of a legal contest on precisely
 this issue.

 Even a legally provable earlier date for equivalent work
 would not show that the patent was invalid, but rather that
 the earlier inventor was entitled to the patent.


 Next, we normally think of "prior art" in terms of publications:
 books or magazine articles which clearly describe the invention.
 In general, "prior art," must have been "freely and openly
 available."  Even an actual working device may not constitute
 "prior art."

 We distinguish between a software product *containing* the
 invention, and the actual software invention itself.  In the
 case of software inventions, it is certainly possible for a
 product using an invention to be available, and for the average
 programmer ("practitioner") to still *not* know how the invention
 operates (at the level of detail protected by the patent).  If so,
 we may be dealing with a trade secret, which neither gets nor
 deserves patent protection, and which cannot interfere with
 a patent or an application.

 Even if the source code for such a system was "freely and openly
 available," if no documentation particularly described the
 invention, the average programmer *still* might not understand
 it.  In this case, even *published source code* might not be
 enough (by itself) to constitute "prior art."  In contrast, any
 descriptive publication, even in a minor journal, *would* be
 "prior art."  But no such publication was described.

 ---
 Terry Ritter    Ritter Software Engineering    (512) 892-0494
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Recent Patent Office policy issues
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:16:26 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.


In <4628@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
...

>    The US also will insist that other countries change their laws to deter
>large corporations from attempting to block the issuance of patents to other
>parties through the use of orchestrated challenges.

Isn't that what LPF is trying to do on Usenet in regard some "software" patents?
Is it illegal?

>[Wall Street Journal 4/6/92, B8]
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
Ich bin ein Virus.  Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Recent Patent Office policy issues
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:50:13 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <4669@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) writes:

>a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:

>>In <4628@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:

>>>    The US also will insist that other countries change their laws to deter
>>>large corporations from attempting to block the issuance of patents to other
>>>parties through the use of orchestrated challenges.

>>Isn't that what LPF is trying to do on Usenet in regard some "software" patents?

>The LPF is doing no such thing.  Please [explain why you
>consider this to be the case and the facts upon which you rely]

There was a message, purporting to be from a representative of the LPF,
which asked people to send existing "patentable" software to them for
inclusion in a "library" of existing art, in order to provide a basis to
challenge the patents when later applied for by non-LPF-supporters.  (I've
lost the message ID; this is my recollection as to the content of the
message, etc., etc.).  If my recollection is correct, then what is the
difference between what was suggested and what you say is illegal?

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
Ich bin ein Virus.  Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.
From: patents@cs.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Recent Australian Decision
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:18:32 GMT

In a recent Australian Federal Court decision, the judge took
a very liberal view of what is patentable subject matter and
extended it to the realms of software algorithms.

In I.B.M v. Commissioner of Patents 
handed down on 13 December, 1991 (of which I only have an unreported 
judgement) judge Burchett J. overruled the Patents Office who
had refused to grant the patent claiming it was unpatentable
subject matter in line with the US Freeman Test and subsequent
authorities. 

The patent application (AU 73701/87) based on a US basic
application filed  13 June 1986, Number Unknown) related to 
the use of integer arithmetic to produce improved curves on a screen. 

The Judge felt that so long as the algorithm had some use in
producing a product (including an improved curve on a screen)
then it should form patentable subject matter. This is to be
contrasted with an application for a mathematical algorithm
per se. 



pjt
====================================================================
Peter Treloar - comp.patents Moderator
Posts to patents@cs.su.oz.au
Send problems to patents-request@cs.su.oz.au
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Roger E Billings and File Server Patent
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:34:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <4653@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> 
	rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
>Unless there is something specifically unique to his *implementation*,
>his patent is worthless.
>
>-Rob

[mod- censored to read:
	Without a proper examination of the patent there is no way
	to know the value of the patent.
	Please refrain from dismissing the matter as worthless
	unless it is as a consequence of a reasoned judgement that
	reflects knowledge of the Patent Law issues involved.
	]

-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
From: brnstnd@KRAMDEN.ACF.NYU.EDU (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: The future of comp.patents
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:44:06 GMT
Organization: IR

Steven P. Skabrat writes:
> The sky is falling tactic will not change the bureacratic inertia of the
> PTO and the CAFC.

I'm not going to comment on Steven's various claims about what the
United States population wants, the history of patents, and the nature
of comp.patents postings. I simply want to point out that the people
against software patents engage in a far wider variety of tactics than
the ``sky is falling tactic''; and where one tactic fails to inspire
change, another may succeed. So it's not unreasonable to engage in the
meta-discussion of whether software patents should exist. To say that
we're stuck with them for good, so why talk about it, is naive.

---Dan
From: "a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: FFT Patent? (was Re: The future of comp.patents)
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:10:30 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <4656@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> sps@email.sp.unisys.com (Steven P. Skabrat) writes:


>Did I stumble into alt.politics by accident here?

[In my opinion,] Well, the law says that algorithms, per se, 
cannot be patented (or something
like that).  The PTO seems to be approving algorithms patents.  This can
rationally lead to discussion of whether the PTO SHOULD be approving
algorithm patents.

Whatever happened the the recent FFT patent, anyway.  Published prior art
dates back at least to the late 19th century.

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
Ich bin ein Virus.  Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.

[mod- Was this the Bracewell Transform???]
From: "a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: FFT Patent?
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:51:46 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <4671@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> "a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com"@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM writes:

>Whatever happened the the recent FFT patent, anyway.  Published prior art
>dates back at least to the late 19th century.

>[mod- Was this the Bracewell Transform???]

Probably what I remember.  I didn't actually read the patent, but the
description published in the AMS Notices looked identical to the original
FFT ca. 1880.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
Ich bin ein Virus.  Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.