HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Win 3.1: mouse.sy_ and mouse.co_, how to decompress?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:14:13 GMT


I did a custom instillation and the new mouse drivers did not get
copied over. I've found them on disk #4, but can't figure out how to
decompress them. Help.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: hugh@slee06.srl.ford.com (Hugh Fader)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Win 3.1 corrupted permanent swap file
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:20:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: fmsrl7.1992Apr16.122033.23691
Reply-To: hugh@slee01.srl.ford.com
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI

Windows 3.1 won't let me create a permanent swap file. When I try, and
then restart windows, I get ``corrupted swap file'' message. I have a
Compudyne 386SX with 2MB memory, 100 MB Seagate disk, and 40 MB
seagate disk.

Any help?
--
Hugh Fader
hugh@slee01.srl.ford.com
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: mjohnsto@jenny.shearson.com (Mike Johnston)
Subject: Win 3.1 Cardfile and old cards.crd:BLAMMO!
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:37:34 GMT


I have an unusual problema with my 3.1. Last night I fired up
cardfile for the first time and had it use my old (3.0) cardfile
(which, incidentally, worked under the beta 3.1) and I got a
'Not Enough memory to run this application' error. Funy, I have
plenty of memory so I knew that wasn't the problem. It turns out
the error only crops up when I use the OLD cards.crd file. If I create
a new one everthing is fine. What gives?  Has anyone else seen this?

MJ
--
Michael R. Johnston	mjohnsto@jenny.shearson.com  
Lehman Brothers         (212) 464-3061
"I was a reporter, and this worried me a great deal and I could not understand
how the devil I had gotten myself into such a fix." - Hesse
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.191046.21278@news.iastate.edu> arakins@iastate.edu (Andrew R Akins) writes:
>  OK. I've decided to stick with Windows, rather than switch to OS/2.
>These are my reasons:
>
>
>  2. Hardware Requirements. I have the following machine:
>
>     Haupauge Renegade 386-16 with 387
>     110mb EDSI Drive
>     5 MB Memory
>     Paradise SVGA driving a NEC Multisync 2a
>     
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>  6. Windows NT is coming. 'nuff said.

You aren't serious are you?  Windows NT on your 386-16?  Not in this or
any other lifetime...  ;)

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

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: arakins@iastate.edu (Andrew R Akins)
Subject: Win 3.1 and Ad Lib Sound Card
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
 
  Hey there folks.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:55:05 GMT

  I'm new to this group, so I appologize if this is a FAQ, but I
was wondering: Does Win 3.1 support my original (read:old) Ad Lib
music card? I have read a lot of stuff about it supporting Sound
Blaster....

  Just curious. I know Sound Blaster is supposed to be better, but
I like my Adlib (it works great), and I really don't have the cash
to buy a new sound card. But it would be cool to get the sounds to
work with Win 3.1....

  Thanks...

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


Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: bregel@cs.washington.edu (Aaron Bregel)
Subject: Re: Ami Pro 2 + Win 3.1?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: comp.windows.ms
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 06:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.070708.11878@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Brad Taplin) writes:
>	Enough of that. Rumor has it that Win 3.1 has probs with
>	Ami Pro 2.0. So can anyone verify or refute this? I must
>	decide before June since fifty bucks is my limit for a
>	while and that is the upgrade price from Microsoft. We
>	have a HP deskjet, Gateway 386sx-16, and numerous TSRs.
>	I generally run in standard mode, with Afterdark going.

Taken from the Application Compatibility Help file in 3.1

Lotus Ami Pro

To run Lotus Ami Pro with Windows version 3.1, you must use Ami Pro version 2.0
or later. 
For information about obtaining an updated version of Lotus Ami Pro, contact 
your software vendor or call the Lotus Corporation at 404-851-0007 or
1-800-831-9679. Outside the United States, contact your local software vendor
or Lotus subsidiary. 



While is does not indicate if it has problems it sounds like since you have
2.0 is just might work.


Aaron Bregel
From: sms@cs.utexas.edu (Stephen Mark Sanderson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: ATI VGA Wonder drivers are in demand!  help!
Date: 14 Apr 1992 13:10:08 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: levelland.cs.utexas.edu

Video drivers for Windows 3.1 are a hot item...the new drivers for ET3000/ET4000
cards, Orchid Prodesigner II, Diamond Speedstar (and Stealth), and Trident cards
have all been posted on either wuarchive.wustl.edu in pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS or on
ftp.cica.indiana.edu in pub/pc/win3.  What I REALLY need are the new ATI VGA
Wonder drivers...the Graphics Ultra drivers are up, but I'm not rich enough to own
one.  Could SOMEONE please post the Wonder/+/XL drivers?  Several people have said
that they have them, and even that they put 'em on wuarchive, but nothing yet...
HELPHELPHELP
-- 
This is a .signature virus!  I'm infecting you NOW, so kiss your disk goodbye!
							sms@cs.utexas.edu
From: axa12@po.CWRU.Edu (Ashok Aiyar)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: RE: WHY I'M STICKING WITH
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:05:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr17.040544.14311
Reply-To: axa12@po.CWRU.Edu (Ashok Aiyar)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, john.will@satalink.com (John Will) says:

>TO: donnel@helix.nih.gov
>DA.Another perspective on why to stick to Windows.  I have 5 IBM Model 80
>  .PS/2's with 2 mb ram and 80 mb hard drives.  These machines are perfectly
>  .adequate Windows platforms.  To upgrade to OS/2 2.0 for these machines
>  .would require 4 mb ram ($600.00) and at least another 80 mb hard disk
>  .($800.00).  [PS/2 upgrades are not cheap.]  For the same $1400.00 I can
>  .buy a 386 clone with svga graphics, 80 mb hard drive, 4 mb memory and
>  .with DOS 5.0 and Windows included in the bundle. 
>
>Gee, with another $160, you could add an additional 4mb of RAM, spend the
>$49 to upgrade from Windows to OS/2, and have it too.  Now, where were
							^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>those "huge" savings you were alluding to?
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your sarcasm is out of context.

Donald clearly says that either he continue running Windows 3.1
and not spend money on additional hardware, or he would have to
spend the additional $1400 (and either upgrade his machines or buy
new machines) to run OS/2.  The $1400 that he doesn't spend are his
savings.

Ashok
-- 
  Ashok A. Aiyar   Department of Biochemistry   CWRU Med. School
   		       axa12@po.cwru.edu
		   aiyar@cwbio.bioc.cwru.edu
                Visit the IBM-PC Sig on Freenet
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:05:08 GMT

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

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

So tell us Donald, what system will you be running NT on?
From: reijnierse@research.ptt.nl
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Winspeed
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:07:41 GMT

I've heard something about a windows screen accelerator named Winspeed.
It supposedly speeds up windows dialog boxes etc. with a factor of about 5.
Does anyone have experience with this package. If yes, could you send me 
your opinion.

Thanks!

Alex Reijnierse
PTT Research, The Netherlands
From: lessen@qtp.ufl.edu (Dan Lessen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: freelance
Keywords: How to put equation numbers ???
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:49:37 GMT
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, University of Florida

Recently I have purchased Freelance Graphics for Windows 3.0.  I
have had moderate success communicating to output devices on the
parallel port(s).   However I am unable to use my HP 7475A
plotter.  I believe the device is properly installed and
configured but nonetheless the following error message occurs:
"Cannot write to Com".  The tech support at Freelance claims they
may not be completely compatible with the Windows device driver? 
What is this suppose to mean?  Anyone have any experience with
this problem.  Reply requested.
-- 
===(((((========((======(((===((=====		lessen@qtp.ufl.edu
===((==((======((((=====((((==((=====		Dan E. Lessen
===((===((====((==((====((=((=((=====		Department of Chemistry
===((==((====((((((((===((==((((=====		Univeristy of Florida
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Eggheads "Cue" price
From: dhawan@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:44:40 CST
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Missouri-Kansas City

> 
> So for all that you mention, how much does "Cue" cost?
> 
> Why did you leave that info out?



The neat thing about the whole deal is:  CUE is free.

I ordered the package with:

Windows 3.1 upgrade
After Dark 2.0
Central Point Backup 7.2    $72 or so + shipping

NOT A BAD PRICE EVEN IF I HAVE TO WAIT TILL NEXT WEDNESDAY.  I already have Win
3.1 till then from CompUSA.  Even though windows won't be here from EGGs till
next week,  I already have After Dark.

Tej
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:12741 comp.os.os2.misc:11883
From: johns@mcs213i.cs.umr.edu (John Stone)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Tastes gross/more fattening
Keywords: (hex encoded ASCII) 3A 2D 29
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:44:35 GMT
Followup-To: comp.windows.ms
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1992Apr14.044323.4432@microsoft.com> jeffpar@microsoft.com (Jeff PARSONS) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.224400.10885@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> stoen@katana.eng.hou.compaq.com (Rick Stoen) writes:
>>I think you are missing the point. In Windows when you get a UAE or
>>whatever they are calling it in 3.1, the only safe thing to do is shut
>>everything down and reboot your machine. Under OS/2 you just close the
>>application, or exit Win/OS2 and start it up again. There is a BIG
>>difference between restarting an application and rebooting your machine.


>In Windows 3.1, you'll hit far fewer faults, and a much higher percentage
>of them will be non-fatal (as compared to Windows 3.0).  The percentages
>are better with OS/2, but you pay a price for that (in terms of size and
>speed of the operating system).  

I got much better performance out of OS/2 1.3 than I EVER got out of
any version of windows.  I used to use windows, then I saw OS/2 and
bought 1.2 EE, and discovered how worthless windows actually is.
I agree that OS/2 is bigger than DOS/Windows, but not by very much...
When I had DOS/Windows 3.0 on my machine, it used about 10 Meg of disk.
The networking stuff was terrible and also ate up disk, and I couldn't
find a good X windows program that would run under DOS or windows.
I don't see many unixes running slower than windows these days.
I've seen PC's running unix with X that perform a hell of a lot
better than DOS/Windows on the same machine.



>Don't delude yourself though, OS/2 is not
>bullet-proof.  There are things like shared memory and other shared objects
>running around in the system which, if misused or abused, can subtly or
>non-subtly hose your system.

NOTHING is completely bulletproof....  I see workstations and mainframes
crash once and a while, (not due to hardware problems either...)
Nothing like having a kernel panic in Unix is there :)

As I said, NOTHING is completely bulletproof, but some systems make it 
back from the battlefield and others don't :)

>Jeff Parsons
>Not a Microsoft spokesperson
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You guys never are :-)


   John 
-- 
/* include <stddsclmr.h>               | OS/2 2.0, its curtains for Windows! */
/* EE/CS Junior.                       | MS-Windows, for people who like to  */
/* University of Missouri - Rolla      | live in glass houses :-)            */ 
/* Missouri's Technological University | UMR Solar Car Team                  */
From: rfutscher@pbs.org
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Where is win3.1?
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:20:26 EDT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA

In article <0y1t3=n@rpi.edu>, dorsai@iear.arts.rpi.edu (gregory d moncreaff) writes:
> it is now 16:10 est monday april 6.
> 
> where is win3.1?
> 
> if the don't get it to me today i think msoft should refund
> the shipping charges....
> 
> 
> argh...

If you ordered the Resource Kit it is back ordered.  They will ship 
everything at the same time.

Robert Futscher  rfutscher@pbs.org
From: bradley@cs.utexas.edu (Bradley L. Richards)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: SoundBlaster on Exit.
Date: 14 Apr 1992 20:16:34 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Nick Susch writes:
>after windows quits, my Soundblaster card make a buzzing, static type sound.
>This does not happen most of the time, but it is annoying when it does. Does
>anyone know what would be causing this?

No idea of the cause, but you're not alone--it happened to me twice, both times
at a volume that left me peeling myself off the ceiling.

Bradley
From: cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:13:45 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <92105.200152RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at> RONY@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at (FLATSCHER Rony) writes:

>anymore). From the viewpoint of the host operating system (like on NT
>next year) windows is just like any other app and is sheltered from all
>other apps. Therefore you may even run several copies of Windows itself
>(and multiple windows-apps in every Windows-session), which - and that
>**is** great - are truly multitasked against each other. This means, that
>I can reformat, spellcheck, recalc, print in one Windows-session and
>switch to another to work with another set of Windows-apps, **without**
>waiting on one Win-app to finish.


But, hypothetically speaking, what if two Windows apps running in different
OS/2 windows tried to access and update the same file (e.g. win.ini) at the
same time.  If both apps were running under just Windows, the app would
probably not give up control until after the file update was completed.
Under OS/2, control may be wrested from the app before completion of the
update and the other app may be given control.

Granted the probability of both apps wanting to access the same file at the
same time is pretty small, but with 2,000,000 million copies :-) of OS/2 out
there it's bound to happen sooner or later.


Chuck

Charles H. Chapman  (GTRI/MATD)             (404) 528-7588
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!matd!cchapman
Internet: cchapman@matd.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: dre@cray.com (Dennis Ellis)
Subject: Re: NoS/2 shipping yet?
Organization: Cray Research Inc
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:26:20 CDT

In article <1992Apr9.150024.743@access.usask.ca> lowey@jester.usask.ca writes:
>From jsmolnar@descartes.waterloo.edu:
>
>> Well, MS did this because it wanted to create an open system for
>> font technology that works cross platform (ie Mac).  Besides this
>> technology has been proven better than ATM (so you can stick with it
>> if you feel).
>
>You're saying that Adobe fonts don't work on the Mac???  My guess is
>the only reason Truetype was used instead of Adobe is that the Adobe
>licence was more expensive.  As for the fonts, have you seen many
>Truetype fonts available on FTP sites?  Now compare that with Adobe fonts.
>
  Not to mention the several hundred thousand Suns out there that produce
Postscript output for the "Apple" printers attached to them.

  Also, the latest PC Mag has an article discussing TrueType vs. Postscript.
It does not at all prove that TrueType technology is better than ATM - just
different. They both have their place (according to PC Mag).


-- 
*******************************************************************************
* Dennis Ellis (dre@sequoia.cray.com) *                                       *
* Cray Research, Inc.                 *                                       *
* Eagan, MN 55121                     * All the normal stuff about opinions.. *
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Review
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:29:34 GMT

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.

As far as I know, MOUSE.COM has nothing to do with Windows, unless it's
somehow related to the ability to run mice in windowed DOS sessions.  If
that's the case, then we're back at the MOUSE.COM/MOUSE.SYS arguments,
because there's no copy of MOUSE.SYS with WIN31.

MOUSE.COM *is* decompressed and placed in your Windows directory...at least
on my system.  FYI, I did a full fresh install rather than trying to
update an existing 3.0 system, so this might affect the MOUSE.COM install
logic.

Joe Morris
From: reedj@hplsla.hp.com (Reed Jacobsen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Excel 4.0 ...or 3.1 ?
Date: 2 Apr 92 00:24:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: hplsla.3130103
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA

>/ hplsla:comp.windows.ms / harper@convex.com (David Harper) /  5:48 am  Mar 27, 1992 /
>In article <1992Mar26.211428.4449@watserv1.waterloo.edu> roger@wateol.uwaterloo.ca (roger@wateol.uwaterloo.ca) writes:
>>I recently purchased excel 3.0 and lo and behold along comes a new version 
>>only a few months later  (15 months after initial release).!!!
>>
>>I feel a little bit peeved at MS.  I don't know why they couldn't hold off 3.0 
>>to incorporate some of the added functionality that 4.0 offers.  I know its 
>>dog eat dog (get it out the door as quick as you can) out there but this is 
>>ridiculous.  Am I supposed to think that the added functionality (flexible
>>menu bar (which is in WFW 2.0) and statistical funtions) were only made 
>>possible within the past year.  At least provide a cheaper upgrade path for 
>>the 3.0 users ($125 come on).  Also, doesn't this sound like Excel 3.1 and
>>not 4.0.
>>
>>Am I way off base here or what ?
>
>
>I agree that a cheaper upgrade price would be nice, particularly for recent
>purchases of 3.0.  This week I called Microsoft about the upgrade and found
>out that the upgrade was free to anyone who purchased 3.0 after Feb 15.  I
>got mine in January.  I think the price quoted me was $99 through July (or
>something like that).  After that the price goes up to $125.  At those prices
>I suspect I will stay with 3.0
>----------

I bought my 386/25 computer just a couple of months before the 486's hit the
street.  I'm really peeved at Intel for not waiting to bring out the 386
until the 486 features were there. :-)

It really would be nice to have Microsoft offer a cheaper upgrade to existing
users than they do.  At least this time they're doing the $100 vs $129 for
a couple of months.  But I suspect there's an awful lot of programming work
that goes into adding as much functionality as there is between 3.0 and 4.0
(I promise, it's much more than a customizable toolbar!)

Microsoft got bashed pretty hard in the press for taking as long between 2.0
and 3.0 as they did.  Well before they introduced 3.0, they stated a goal to
turn major feature releases every 15-18 months.  So far, they seem to be 
doing it.  Maybe another way to look at it is to try to upgrade sooner after
the release so you can enjoy the "current" release longer.

.......
Reed Jacobson
reedj@hplsla.hp.com

[ I'm not a Microsoft fanatic, but I am an Excel fanatic.]
From: jset_cif@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Jeff Setzer)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: How to move TrueType fonts (long)
Keywords: Windows 3.1 TrueType fonts
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:53:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Apr17.175330.23181
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Apr17.161609.20766@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> jset_cif@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Jeff Setzer) writes:

>I have a question about TT fonts, then.  I just downloaded and installed all
>of the fonts in ftp.cica's truetype directory...only the .TTF files were
>included in the .zip files.  I thought I'd have a problem with that, but I
>tried anyway...and they work fine!  What gives?  No .FOT files, but they
>display on the screen fine, scale fine, and print fine.

>So what's the deal with .FOT files?

Some people have already mailed me about the solution to this question: the
.FOT files are *generated* from the .TTF files upon installation!  So,
that's the answer to my own question.  Thanks, folks...I (and I'm sure a few
other people) are a lot less confused now :-).

--
ASTROSETZ            | Internet: jset_cif@cc.rochester.edu (U of Rochester, NY)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Heavens Declare | ...but it's hard to tell with those  |   CONTEXT IS  
The Glory Of God..." | seven waves of spherical aberration! |   EVERYTHING
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: sallred@cse.unl.edu (Scott Allred)
Subject: Re: Notes from the SCSI trenches: My Installation nightmare with 3.1
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 07:28:25 GMT

     Anther question about SCSI and smartdrv 4.0.  After installing windows 3.1 on a 386/25 with a adaptec 1542b SCSI controllor, the system started running    very slow.  Norton gives a thoughput of 520 k/sec without smartdrv.  With       smartdrv 4.0 running it gives a number of only 58 k/sec.  Double buffering was  set up in config.sys and then smartdrv was loaded in autoexec.bat when windows  3.1 was set up.  Any ideas?

Scott Allred
sallred@cse.unl.edu