HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Date: 11 Apr 1992 23:18:17 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

WARNING: OS/2 discussion follows, sensitive Windows users may wish to skip 
	 the rest of this article.

demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo ) writes:
>chawdry@cis.ohio-state.edu (rehan nisar chawdry) writes:

>> On a 386, you have to be all but blind not to consider (read CONSIDER)
>> OS/2 2.0. [...]

>Well...before you consider...

>According to InfoWorld:

>OS/2 2.0 will *not* be compatable with Windows 3.1

What make them use the definite term "will *not*"?  OS/2 2.0 is not compatible
with Windows 3.1 now, but IBM has publicly stated they will add 3.1 support
to OS/2.  In fact, Lee Reiswig was shown demostrating seamless 3.1 support
in OS/2 a few days ago in COMDEX.  Expect 3.1 support by summer.

>OS/2 2.0 will *not* support SVGA or XGA graphics modes. 

Wrong.  OS/2, like Windows, has Device Independent Graphics, SVGA or XGA
graphics modes ARE supported.  But writing the device driver is hardly
IBM's responsibility (unless it's for 8514/A or XGA).  If you [them] mean
seamless Windows support on SVGA and XGA, Trident has already release
drivers for seamless Windows for their 8900 cards.

>OS/2 2.0 Windows emulation will support only one Windows application
>         per Window, and they are several orders of magnitude slower
>	 than just running in Windows. 

Wrong.  OS/2 has no such limit, whether running Windows applications
seamlessly; or in a seperate WinOS2 desktop; or in multiple WinOS2 
desktops.  And what do you [them] mean by "several orders of magnitude
slower"????  Someone just posted some benchmarks in comp.os.os2.misc
stating the exact opposite.

>OS/2 2.0 will not support full-blown pre-emptive multitasking for
>         another 12-18 months. 

Absolutely wrong.  OS/2 has pre-emptive multitasking since 1.x.
They probably meant symmetric multi-processing, the date sounds
about right.

>Moral: If you are buying OS/2 for OS/2...great. Do it..multithreading
>       is a good thing, and OS/2 has it. If you are buying OS/2 
>       'cuz you want to run mostly Windows applications in OS/2's
>       PM...you might want to rethink that.

Wait a minute, you believe everything the rags tell you???  After 
reading all those biased coverages in the major rags, I can honestly
say most of these writers are absolute idiots.  And Robert, I hate
to sound nasty, since that's not (normally) my style, but you have
no right to pass judgements on something you have no personal experience
on.  Get your facts straight before you post.  This also applies if people
wish to talk about OS/2/NT/Unix, if you haven't personally used the thing,
then don't pass any judgements on it, all the "I heard from a friend"/"I
read on some mag" statements don't carry much weight.

--
                               _   /|
Nan Zou                        \'o.O'     "Procrastination is an art,
nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu           =(___)=     of which I am a master."
#include <std_disclaimer.h>       U
From: csasaki@halcyon.com (Chris Sasaki)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 PC speaker MM driver?
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:12:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: halcyon.XuHwiB1w165w
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service

ehunt@bsc835bsc.edu (Eric Hunt) writes:

> Does anyone know if Microsoft ever plans to, or has released previously in
> the beta drops, a driver to allow .WAV files to be played through the regular
> PC speaker?
> -- 
> Eric Hunt
> Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
> bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
> eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com


Well, on the Microsoft Download Service (9600/2400/1200 baud, N81, 
206-637-9009, if you don't read your registration stuff carefully) they 
have the PC Speaker drivers.  Along with a bunch of other stuff, like the 
Tseng ET4k 256/32k/64k color drivers, S3 display drivers, the full Win 
Resource Kit (The docs expand to around 4.3 megs, so I'd still buy the 
thing for $20.)  I didn't pick up the Speaker drivers, as I have an SB 
Pro.  (BTW- Win 3.1 told me that I should get the SB Pro drivers, but 
they weren't on the Download service.  Thunderboard and Pro Audio 
Spectrum drivers were, though.)  Anyway, there is a lot of stuff there.  
God, I love being a local call to Microsoft.  Anyway, I can make some of 
the stuff available eventually, if Microsoft has no objections...

csasaki@halcyon.com


--
  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA
                          PEP, V.32, V.42bis
                  +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.65b +++
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: tjr@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (thomas.j.roberts)
Subject: Re: Win 3.1's Bad DeskJet 500 Driver (AAAARGH!)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:45:46 GMT

From article <54082@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by gt3791a@prism.gatech.EDU (JOHNSON):
> [tale of woe about Windows 3.1 not printing to Deskjet]
>
> Anyways...back to a more constructive note...  Has anyone else gotten their
> DeskJet 500 or DeskJet + to work properly with 3.1?  Does anyone know how
> to fix the problem (other than buying a new printer of a different kind)?

I simply did an UPGRADE installation to my Windows 3.0 directory, using
the CUSTOM options to avoid installing unnecessary stuff (games, ...).
The Deskjet Scalable Fonts driver remained, and worked fine. I then
went to Control Panel, and installed the Windows 3.1 Deskjet 500
driver (it asked for one of the distribution diskettes), and did
the obvious things (no nonsense about "screen fonts", however).
The Windows 3.1 Deskjet driver works MUCH faster than the older 3.0
Scalable font driver from HP - It has only the TrueType fonts, but
that is enough for me. In Word4Windows I had to do "Printer Setup"
before the TrueTYpe fonts were visible.

I have no idea what your problem is - works fine for me. I have
installed WIndows 3.1 onto two machines: a Gateway2000 386/33,
and an AT&T 6386 WGS. Same results on both - WIndows 3.1 is faster
and prettier, and has MUCH better selection of fonts. My only problem
was that TurboDebuggerforWIndows wouldn't work, but I downloaded
TDWIN.ZIP from Compu$erve (GO BPROGB, Library 8), and it works with
a few quirks (starting TDW from TCW fails to load the file, but it can be
loaded manually; starting from ProgMan works OK).

In short, I am very happy with WIndows 3.1 - it completely meest my 
expectations.

Tom Roberts	att!ihlpl!tjrob		TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON)
Subject: Re: HCI Guidelines in windows
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:17:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.211407.14925@ils.nwu.edu> pbright@ils.nwu.edu (Paul  
Brightbill) writes:
> Does anyone know if MicroSoft or some other group has come out with any press
> releases or published any materials concerning Human Computer Interface
> Guidelines in a Windows environment?  I'm interested in any information that
> would be available.  PB  (pbright@ils.nwu.edu)

Microsoft will be publishing their new Windows Style Guide with the Windows 3.1  
SDK. It's been revamped and updated to cover new Win3.1 issues that didn't  
exist in the old CUA handbook they used to ship. You can probably get it  
seperately by calling them.

- Brian
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: lowey@jester.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey,159 Physics,(306) 966-4826,(306) 249-3232)
Subject: Re: NoS/2 shipping yet?
Originator: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Reply-To: lowey@jester.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:00:24 GMT

From jsmolnar@descartes.waterloo.edu:
>>Nothing was left out.  It has all the features that it was supposed to
>>ship with,

> Well, hate to tell you this, but 32 bit Pm is not included, not all
> of seamlessswindows is included (ie SVGA, this is a fact), and other
> things, so becareful, you don't seem to know exactly what you are
> getting.  They are giving you a product they said would be complete,
> but it is not.

But, the question is, when did IBM ever guarantee that the 32-bit PM
and the SVGA support was supposed to be in version 2.0?  These are NOT
features that were "left out" of the Beta.  These are additionial
features that IBM was going to throw in eventually, but nobody ever
guaranteed it would be in OS/2 2.0.  Only the rumor mills on the net
ever said they would be in 2.0.

As for the SVGA support, I've already got the Trident SVGA drivers
with seamless windows support.  It works great.


 
> On the other hand, Windows 3.1 is complete, and not a minor upgrade,
> it is not called 4.0 because MS already knows what it wants in 4.0
> (and announced it basically).  So I think I will take the product I
> know is complete and doesn't require another few disks of upgrading in
> June...>

If by complete you mean it requires major upgrades to non-MS products
in order for them to run, and if by complete you mean they renamed the
UAE dialog box to a different name to get rid of UAE errors #8-)

>>   - A built in font manager for scalable fonts.  OS/2 has had Adobe
>>     Type Manager integrated into the operating system for years.  
> 

> Sorry, ATM has not been shipping with it for years, for I own it and
> know this for a fact.

ATM is an integral part of OS/2 since at least 1.3 (I don't have my
old manuals handy to check older versions).  I don't know where you
are getting your facts from, but if you have OS/2, try looking in your
manuals and help system under "Adobe Type Manager".  

> 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.

>>OS/2 2.0 comes with DOS 5.0 and Windows.  Windows comes with a disclaimer.  
>>Any questions?     - juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan Jose T. Noyles)
> 
> Ya, then why does OS/2 come with a disclaimer as well.

Why? To maintain compatibility with MS-Windows of course #8-)

- Kevin Lowey
-- 
OS/2 2.0 comes with DOS 5.0 and Windows.  Windows comes with a disclaimer.  
Any questions?     - juan@noyles.pha.pa.us (Juan Jose T. Noyles)

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn)
Subject: Re: Number of OS/2 2.0 orders (was Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works)
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:26:06 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.190447.15802@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> dab6@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell) writes:
/>
/>Not all orders go through the 1-800 number.  
/>
/>I can't imagine someone from Sears calling 1-800-3IBMOS2 and saying:
/>"I'd like to buy 20,000 copies of os/2 2.0, can I put this on my VISA card?"
/>
/>:-)

Well of course not.  With Sears it would have to be put on their Discover
card.  They don't do VISA.

By the way, I noticed that the new IBM PS/1's that Sears is selling are bundled
with DOS 5.0, Windows and I believe, MS-Works.  

--
Donald A. Lehn, Ph.D.                      Phone: (301) 496-2885
Bldg.37 Rm 3D20                            FAX:   (301) 496-8419
National Cancer Institute / NIH            Email: donnel@helix.nih.gov
Bethesda MD 20892
From: linville@fritz.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:25:53 GMT
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog

In article <1992Apr15.201720.3686@alw.nih.gov> donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.200508.18117@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Smith) writes:
>/>So tell us Donald, what system will you be running NT on?
>
>Well lets see, the Silicon Graphics Indigo?, the microVax?, the Sun?, the new
>486?  perhaps even this Convex multiprocessor supercomputer?

>Windows NT - The one operating system that fits all.

Sorry about this waste of bandwidth, but I really need to get this straight.

You, Dr. Lehn, are unwilling to upgrade your 286 to a 386 because it is too
expensive for you, yet you are willing to wait a year or more for NT to become
available, to pay $500-$1000 for it, and also buy multiple *EXPENSIVE*
hardware platforms to run it on?  I'm sorry, I just don't understand your
reasoning.

Does anyone know if the NT alphas are running Windows 3.x binaries yet?  They
were not able to run them, not too long ago.

John W. Linville




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
|  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: OS2 vs Windows Bandwidth
Date: 15 Apr 1992 23:13:54 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

If windows users would stop responding to the OS2 missionaries,
this wasted bandwidth could stop.  Children hate to be ignored.

Let them go play in their own sandbox.
From: luis@mavrick.UUCP (luis basto)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows does not multitask (repost)
Date: 15 Apr 92 06:54:41 GMT

nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
: Multitasking without protection is like driving without your seatbelt on.
: 
while eating a juicy, drippy hamburger with a drink between your legs,
flipping thru radio stations, and adjusting your rear-view mirror.
Oh, you're also going too fast to take your eyes off the road. :-)

Luis
----
Undecided about Win 3.1 and OS/2 2.0.
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:19:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.194020.17446@ncsu.edu> linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu  
(John W. Linville) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.191046.21278@news.iastate.edu> arakins@iastate.edu  
(Andrew R Akins) writes:
> >  6. Windows NT is coming. 'nuff said.
> 
> More like 'too much said'.  If you can't afford to run OS/2, how do you think
> you will be able to run NT.  Besides that why do you want to wait for  
something
> to provide you with much of what OS/2 already has.  I know NT will have C2,  
etc
> but don't forget that IBM has the NT source and all those features will find
> their way into OS/2, possibly before they are released in NT!
> 
> Andy, I don't mean to flame.  You seem like a nice guy with an open mind.  I 
> hope your decision works out for you.  I just think that you made the wrong
> one.
> 
> John W. Linville
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |  John W. Linville                Amateur radio:  KD4KHC                  |
> |  #include "std_disclaimer.h"     E-mail:  linville@catt.ncsu.edu         |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NT has got enough great features that I will MAKE room for it on my machine.
OS/2 just doesn't have enough features for me to bother switching to it.
I'm not convinced that IBM does have access to the NT source, but if they do,
I hope they have the sense not to just keep patching things onto OS/2 to try 
to compete with NT, the things that make NT so great have to built in from
scratch. And since the API is a superset of the one I'll be investing in with
Windows, I'll be all set. No need to waste my money on OS/2 apps, nor run my
Windows apps in an environment where they don't belong.
Sounds right to me.

- Brian
From: Robert_Salesas@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Salesas)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: MS/HP win Apple suit!
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:26:07 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Jesus Rodriguez writes:
> 
> Msg-ID: <53282@mimsy.umd.edu>
> Posted: 16 Apr 92 02:05:56 GMT
> 
> Org.  : University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies
> 
> BOO HISS Microsoft :-(  Apple should have won that suit!
> 
> 


Yeah right.  On what grounds?  "We stole it from Xerox first so you can't have
it!"?  Give me a break.  This also frees up many future potential "look and
feel" cases.  Nice move by the judge, and again, good show MS!

Rob

--
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
\ Robert Salesas             + Usenet: Robert_Salesas@MINDLINK.bc.ca /
\ Eschalon Development Inc.  + CIS:    76625,1320    BYTE:  newdawn  /
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: kiraly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Gaspar Kiraly)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: VGA graphics in a windows in windows (how good is it???)
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:24:34 GMT
Organization: UB

Can anyone tell me (who has windows 3.1) who much better is the 
DOS graphics emulation in a Windows' window compared to 3.0?
In 3.0 CGA emulation is uselessly slow... is 3.1 any better?


thanks,

Gaspar

v2173wxv@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
kiraly@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: lygre@hsr.no (Eirik Lygre)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: A note on Norton Desktop 2.0
Date: 12 Apr 92 14:06:45 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

In article <2770058@hparc0.aus.hp.com> kumarr@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Kumar Rangan) writes:
>> / *MaintainerMisgNet* <AXH113@psuvm.psu.edu> /  5:13 am  Mar 22, 1992 /
>
>>I am planning to make the desktop somewhat look like a Macintosh desktop.
>>(I can't afford a good Mac although I like them) Someone suggested Norton
>>Desktop to me. I want to know how good ND is and if possible, I would like
>>suggestions from netters on what I can do to make the desktop look like a
>>mac destop.
>
>If u're still deciding, I'd suggest you read the April 92 issue of Windows 
>USER. It has some good articles comparing Norton Desktop & HP NewWave.
>
>|  Kumar Rangan                Internet   : kumarr@hparc0.aus.hp.com        |
>|  PSO, HP Wellington          HP Desk    : Kumar Rangan/HP9781/01          |
>|  New Zealand                 Tel# : +64 4 382 0400, Fax# : +64 4 384 3380 |

And of course, if your hardware allows it, you should check out os/2 2.0 -- in
particular the workplace shell. It is *very* nice.

Your hardware should be a 386sx or better, with 4 mb of ram or more, and, say, 30 mb of free HD space. Of course, wthose 30 mb will replace (?) Windows and
the norton desktop -- which I imagine are running close to 20 by themselves.

For more information on os/2 itself, take a look in the comp.os.os2.misc,
comp.os.os2.apps and perhaps comp.os.os2.programmer newsgroups.

Happy hunting for Mac-like shell!

Eirik Lygre
lygre@hsr.no

PS: I have tried os/2's workplace shell, Norton desktop, and NewWave. I think
os/2 is the most integrated and most complete of them all -- I imagine this
is because it is an integral part of the operating system.
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: karu@nevada.edu (N.H.A. KARUNARANTE)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:15:59 GMT

In article <moore.703097972@pv34c1.vincent.iastate.edu> moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore) writes:
>In <1992Apr12.060641.15373@muddcs.claremont.edu> jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:
>
>>Incidently, after playing with WPS for half a week, IMHO the interface
>>for OS/2 is *more* intuitive than the Mac, and much more than Windows.
>>Everything is an object, and you can perform actions on them accordingly.
>>Reports from OS/2 users indicate that at first, nearly everybody hates
>>the new interface.  But after a few days of use, everybody loves it.
>
>Great, now I have to learn 2 user interfaces, windows and OS/2, and infinitely
>many more if you count VDM's.  The mouse button thing takes a while to get used
>to, at least it did for me between the Amiga and Windows.
>-- 
>   ________________________________________________________________________
>  /                                  /                                    /
> /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
>/__________________________________/____________________________________/




Brian,
My 8 year old son learned WPS pretty quick. Now he uses both
WIN31 and OS/2 for writing essays and mostly for running his
DOS games under OS/2.
Karu.

karu@nevada.edu
From: glenn@admin.acadiau.ca (GLENN DAVIDSON)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Windows 3.1 in Canada yet?
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:56:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Acadia University


    Just wondering if Microsoft Canada was able to start delivering Windows 
3.1 upgrades as quickly as in the U. S.? Of course it may take them longer 
to hire a fishing boat to deliver it from Ontario to the Maritimes.
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: mjb@netcom.com (Martin Brown)
Subject: Re: Egghead: Win 3.1
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 02:56:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr10.202717.13201@vpnet.chi.il.us> lisbon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gerry Swetsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.221921.10947@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes:
>>johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson) writes:
>
>>: The salesman at our local Egghead said they would be selling it April
>>: 6th as an upgrade for $49.99, the same as Microsoft.
>>
>>Fry's (here in Bay Area) has Win 3.1 upgrade for 48.95.
>
>    CompUSA has them all beat!  $44.97!  Bring your manual with you.
>
Fry's in L.A. has it for $44.88.


-- 

                                   - mjb -

                                mjb@netcom.com
From: Norman.Russell@f43.n140.z1.fidonet.org (Norman Russell)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: FAST! WIN 3.1 Terminal P
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:09:04 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:140/43 - U of S Computing Se, Saskatoon Sask


 On 04-08-92 Briand T Sanderson wrote to All...   
   
 BT> WOW! The Terminal Program is MUCH MUCH Faster. My 9600 looks   
 BT> like 9600 baud now!   
   
What terminal program are you using Briand?   
I'm looking for a good one to use under Windows, preferably one   
that handles ANSI and ZMODEM file transfer.   
   
   
   Norm   
 
... OFFLINE 1.35 * Any given program, once running, is obsolete. 

--  
Norman Russell - via FidoNet node 1:140/22
UUCP: ...!access.usask.ca!weyr!43!Norman.Russell
Domain: Norman.Russell@f43.n140.z1.fidonet.org
Standard Disclaimers Apply...
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: gmf2@quads.uchicago.edu (gary michael feldman)
Subject: WPWIN problem update
Reply-To: gmf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:33:48 GMT

I posted before about my problem with WPwin.  In sum, when
displaying at 640 x 480 256 colors using Paradise card,
my screen fonts look way too small.  TH eonly way to get
them to look normal (sort of ) is to use regular vga.

One thing i forgot to mention is that for some reason WPWIn
starts with courier 11.8 as the font!!!!!! something is going
                    ^^^^^^
on and WP has no clue!!!!!!
It's driving me crazy!!!!!

Gary

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: cchen@unixg.ubc.ca (Chia-tung Chen)
Subject: MicroSoft Win3.1 Drivers
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 07:07:57 GMT

Does anyone know the ftp site for MicroSoft BBS? Or any where that one
can get sound and video drivers (latest) for Windows V3.1. Thank you
in advance!

				Chia-Tung Chen
				cchen@unixg.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms