HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chawdry@toto.cis.ohio-state.edu (rehan nisar chawdry)
Subject: Re: Pause before you consider OS/2 (was Re: Win 3.1 not THAT great.)
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:11:59 GMT

In article <DEMILLO.92Apr10140113@egeus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Robert DeMillo ) writes:
>
>Well...before you consider...
>
>According to InfoWorld:
>
>OS/2 2.0 will *not* be compatable with Windows 3.1

What issue of InfoWorld did you read?  IBM had Win 3.1 running seemlessly
(i.e. on the OS/2 2.0 desktop) the day Windows 3.1 was introduced.  If you
buy OS/2 2.0 you are entitled to a free upgrade to 2.1 in June/July which
will have full Win 3.1 support along with some other neat things.

>OS/2 2.0 will *not* support SVGA or XGA graphics modes. (The
>	 above poster's comments about OS/2 supporting a 32-bit 
>	 SVGA engine, notwithstanding.)

Again, that's incorrect.  there ARE SVGA drivers for OS/2 2.0 but they are
ones that can't take advantage of seemless windows --yet.  Trident is an
exception that have  SVGA drivers already written for OS/2 that support the
aforementioned feature.  By comparison Windows 3.0 had Video 7 SVGA support
ONLY when it was released.

>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. You can switch OS/2 2.0 to
>	 full screen Windows mode, and your Windows performance
>	 goes way up.

Nope, again what beta version of OS/2 was the magazine using?  The GA release
is several (READ: SEVERAL) orders of magnitude greater than 6.177.  You can
run as many windows apps per Window version that you want.

>OS/2 2.0 will not support full-blown pre-emptive multitasking for
>         another 12-18 months. (Not sure what they meant by this,
>	 but it didn't smell right.) At that time, Windows NT
>	 will be on the scene.

Now this is the ultimate source of my anger with Infoworld.  OS/2,
-by design- is a pre=emptive multitasker, ever since it's inception.
People have had debates over which is better cooperative (Windows) or
pre-emptive multitasking (OS/2 and UNIX) for a number of years.  I hated
OS/2 because it didn't support didely and it cost WAY too much.  Now, OS/2 2.0
has changed that.  It has the widest application base in the industry and
you can get it for $49.  It's the first 32-bit OS that is targeted toward
the general public (Even Windows NT is NOT targeted toward the public, like
UNIX).
>

	-- Rehan --
From: victor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (V Menayang)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 PC speaker MM driver?
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:51:07 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <202@bsc835bsc.edu> ehunt@bsc835bsc.edu (Eric Hunt) writes:
>In article <2030@transfer.stratus.com>, leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>> what happened to sndtool.  Sndtool 2.4 gave me a GP error, 2.5 said it
>> couldn't load the driver said "Bad Karma".
>
>Great!! I'm glad someone found this out. I thought the drivers in Sndtool 2.5
>were bad or something. I'll try that too see what happens.....[hmmmm]
>

I downloaded soundtool 2.5 after installing the speaker.drv for win31.
When I tried to install the player library soundtool refused
to recognized it's own player library.  So I guess speaker.drv
and Soundtool's speaker.sll must be in conflict.
Oh well,...



-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Menayang                     victor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
=============================================================
From: tlutz@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Todd Lutz)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:24:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Strange things are afoot with WinWord 2.0a
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Boise, ID
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms

> When I installed Windows 3.1, I started with a clean slate (erasing
> 3.0). Everything worked beautifully, including Write, with which I
> printed out a document on my Panasonic KXP1124 printer. Then I tried
> to install Winword.
> 
> !@#*&!#*@&!!! Now nothing prints out correctly! All I see on the
> printed page are lines of words which seem to be superimposed
> upon each other. Even Write exhibits this behaviour! So I assumed
> it was either the printer driver or the TrueType fonts that were
> causing this problem. I tried to print out a document using PRINTER
> fonts; it worked... but TrueType still did not.

My guess is that when you installed WinWord it overwrote your Win 3.1
printer driver with a Win 3.0 version of your printer driver.  You might
try reinstalling your printer driver from your Win 3.1 system disks.

-- Todd Lutz
From: eagle@catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Upgrade prices
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:25:18 GMT
Reply-To: eagle@catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu)
Organization: NCSU CATT Program

I have heard some of you mention that the Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.1
upgrade price of $39.95 is the cheapest.  I assume you're talking about
Windows vs OS/2 upgrade prices.  Under that assumption, you are very
misinformed in your "cheapest upgrade price" talk.  The upgrade for OS/2
1.x (any version) to OS/2 2.0 is free.  Yes, free.

Of course, you should have already known that, but some of you don't
seem to.

Cheers,

Daniel
--
Daniel L'Hommedieu / CSC Major, NC State U, on the 6-year plan :) 
Internet: eagle@{catt.ncsu.edu,Salzo.Cary.NC.US,grunt.Berkeley.edu}
10215 Hanover Glen Road / Charlotte NC 28210 / 704-541-5116
"Windows 3.1 is Microsoft's $50 bug-fix to Windows 3.0."-JWL
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: QEMM and WINDOWS HATE EACH OTHER ???
Date: 13 Apr 1992 15:13:18 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com
Keywords: n

In article <1992Apr11.035311.2090@colorado.edu>, ramzi@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Ramzi Al-Majid) writes:
|> I am running QEMMand Windoes 3.0. Sometimes when I run a dos application
|> from within Windows, the screen blanks and then I get a message saying that
|> I need to remove QEMM and it asks me if I'd like to continue or reboot but
|> it will only respond to reboot. 
|> 
|> Any idea what is going on???
|> 
|> Thanks.
|> 
More than likely you are trying to overuse an upper memory area.  My guess would
be that you need an exclude statement in system.ini.  Check you QEMM manual for
suggestions, probably in the video card are.  I used to have the same problem
and it is now gone.  The problem turned out to be pilot error, as usual.
From: seybert@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Brian Seybert)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Help! ... Windows 3.1 will not run in 386 enhanced mode
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:50:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I bought windows v3.1 on monday and installed it on top of windows 3.0. It 
installed fine, but will not run in 386 inhanced mode.  My hardware is as
follows:
       -Amtron 80386sx-20 Motherboard
       -8 megs RAM
       -80387sx-20
       -Ati-VGA wonder XL with 1meg ram
       -2- 30 meg RLL hard drives.
       -config.sys:
	  DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\HIMEM.SYS
	  rem DOS=HIGH
	  FILES=60
	  buffers=30
	  rem device=C:\dos\smartdrv.sys 2048 2048
	  DEVICE=C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE /DOUBLE_BUFFER
	  STACKS=9,512
       -autoexec.bat:
	  C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE
	  @ECHO OFF
	  PROMPT $p$g
	  PATH C:\WINDOWS;C:\DOS
	  SET TEMP=C:\DOS

The simptoms are this Win runs fine in standard mode, when started in enhanced
mode with the ati(v3.0) driver the title screen comes up, then I get a blank 
screen with a cursor at the top. If I hit ALT-F4 ENTER I am back in dos, 
therefore I think that windows is running, but without a display. I have spent
several hours on the phone with Microsoft and ATI and nobody seems to be able 
to find the problem. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Brian Seybert - Purdue University - seybert@ecn.purdue.edu  
-- 
Brian Seybert - Purdue University - seybert@ecn.purdue.edu
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win3.1/Smartdrv/Stacker problem (again)
Date: 14 Apr 1992 15:38:21 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Apr14.055857.17382@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, echuang@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ernest Y. Chuang) writes:
|> ... I'm still not
|> sure of a few things when using Win3.1 with Stacker 2.0:
|> 
|> Setup.txt says to put the drive parameters (C- D+ etc...) in the 
|> smartdrv line in config.sys, but the manual seems to say that you
|> only need to put smartdrv in the config.sys (in addition to the
|> autoexec.bat) if your hard drive controller cannot work with virtual
|> memory.  I've tried putting the drive parameters in my autoexec.bat,
|> but then I get errors on bootup, saying that it can't cache the
|> specified drives (I guess it's because the drives have been swapped
|> already by the time it reads the autoexec?)
|> 
|> For the time being, I have 
|> 	loadhigh c:\smartdrv.exe 		in my autoexec
do not use loadhigh.  smartdrv will load itself high.

|> and 	device=c:\smartdrv.exe c- d- e+ f+ 	in my config
remove this line all together.  You only need smartdrive in your config.sys
if you need double buffering.
|> 
|> ... Also, when I
|> check "mem /c," I find 2 entries of smartdrv in conventional memory
|> and another instance of it in upper memory.  (Devicehigh gives me
|> errors, while loadhigh works ok, with smartdrv.)
|> 
|> So:	(1) Do I need smartdrv in my config.sys as well as in my
|> 	    autoexec.bat?
NO
|> 	(2) Where do I put the drive parameters?
I'm still working on this.
|> 	(3) Is it ok to put smartdrv in upper memory?
Let it do it itself.
|> 	(4) Is the smartdrv that comes with Win 3.1 version 4.0?
|> 	    I couldn't figure out how to get smartdrv to report its
|> 	    version number.
???
|>
From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win3.1 and DR-DOS 5.0 problems...
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:50:06 GMT
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <1992Apr8.082228.20025@newshub.sdsu.edu> you write:
>
>The tech support person also mentioned that Microsoft will be offering,
>in a week or so, a reduced price upgrade offer so that us poor souls who
>foolishly use DR-DOS can cheaply upgrade to MS-DOS 5.0.

"Upgrade" to MS-DOS 5.0?  Is that like upgrading to a Yugo?  No, MS-DOS
4.01 was a Yugo.  Let's say a Ford.
I "Upgraded" from MS-DOS 5.0 to DR-DOS 5.0, then upgraded again to
DR-DOS 6.0.  My MS-DOS has been collecting dust for 6 months now.
Actually I only had to pay $80 for all three of the above with the
introductory specials they had.

-- 
========== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson ==========

-- 
========== Boyd Johnson	   nosc!spectra.com!johnson ==========
From: bruce@ais.com
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Eggheads "Cue" price
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:12:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC

In article <1992Apr9.144440.2667@vax1.umkc.edu>, dhawan@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
> 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
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You _do_ like to live dangerously, don't you?  The general consensus
on CompuServe seems to be that CP Backup chases cars and bays at the
moon.  I have a copy of 7.1 and based on that version I would have to
agree ... haven't heard anything specifically about 7.2 being any better;
I would hope so but based on my experiences with 7.1 I am unwilling to
gamble any money on it.  

CP Backup seems to be based on the idea that backup software should be
pretty and that reliability is secondary.  Personally I think that the
tradeoff should be the other way 'round - after all this is software
that is supposed to run 'unattended', and unless you are strictly a
hobbiest it's definitely 'mission-critical' software.

Bruce C. Wright
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.151407.2183@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.142857.27595@alw.nih.gov> donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn) writes:
>>Another perspective on why to stick to Windows.  I have 5 IBM Model 80
>>PS/2's with 2 mb ram and 80 mb hard drives.  These machines are perfectly
>>adequate Windows platforms.  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). 
>
>things up noticably either.  By the way, if you ever do try OS/2 and
>use the HPFS file system, I'm told you should have 6 mb or more.
>
>($600 for an additional 2mb ram??)
>

Sorry for my last post, I thought you meant bringing the systems up to
4 mb.  I guess you mean 6mb which is realistic.  But $600 for 4mb ???


-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

"Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical" - Yogi
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jinli@dgp.toronto.edu (Jin Li)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:12:55 GMT


UI for OS/2 is quite confusing and is very different from Windows 3.x
If you run DOS, Windows 3.x and OS/2 app at the same time, you will
be confused quickly and will likely get frustrated.

There are lots of inconsistency within OS/2 and between Windows 3.x
and OS/2.  e.g. in OS/2, left mouse btn is used for selection only and
right mouse btn is for dragging.  In Windows 3.x, left btn is for selection
and dragging.  You will have "fun" with this for hours.  In OS/2, you
can thread the floppy drive (icon).

Use the two (don't just look at their demo/video) and make you decision.
From: jjs@ubitrex.mb.ca (John Joseph Strybosch)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: 1024x768 fonts are too big
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:37:21 GMT
Organization: Ubitrex Corporation, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Originator: jjs@ubitrex.mb.ca

I'm running on a 20" monitor in 1024x768x256 mode and
find that the pixel size is almost that of vga on a
14" monitor.  Is is possible to change the DPI so that
I'd get smaller fonts?... At least the ICONS are still a
reasonable size :-)

JJ Strybosch
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore)
Subject: Re: VOC2WAV.ZIP
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:02:30 GMT

In <11348@mindlink.bc.ca> Mike_Quigley@mindlink.bc.ca (Mike Quigley) writes:

>Which directory is this file located in at cica.cica. Is it also at wuarchive
>as well?

cica is down...

Host wuarchive.wustl.edu   (128.252.135.4)
Last updated 05:04  3 Apr 1992

    Location: /mirrors2/win3/uploads
      FILE      r--r--r--     42297  Mar 25 14:26   voc2wav.zip

-- 
   ________________________________________________________________________
  /                                  /                                    /
 /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
/__________________________________/____________________________________/
From: benanav@earth.njit.edu (Dan Benanav)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Using DLL's
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:59:39 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.


Suppose  A DLL is supplied by a third party. Can the functions supplied
be used with any programming language?   For example, I have
the Borland C++ and application frameworks.   How can I
use the function supplied in the DLL?  



                         Dan
From: kxj6@po.CWRU.Edu (Kijin Jung)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Strange things are afoot with WinWord 2.0a
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:55:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr14.045540.8213
Reply-To: kxj6@po.CWRU.Edu (Kijin Jung)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


When I installed Windows 3.1, I started with a clean slate (erasing
3.0). Everything worked beautifully, including Write, with which I
printed out a document on my Panasonic KXP1124 printer. Then I tried
to install Winword.

!@#*&!#*@&!!! Now nothing prints out correctly! All I see on the
printed page are lines of words which seem to be superimposed
upon each other. Even Write exhibits this behaviour! So I assumed
it was either the printer driver or the TrueType fonts that were
causing this problem. I tried to print out a document using PRINTER
fonts; it worked... but TrueType still did not.

I opened Control Panel, opened Printer/Setup, clicked OK. I pulled
down the "File" menu in Winword, selected Printer Setup, and clicked OK.
No such LUCK. Still prints out gibberish. If ANYONE could help me
out (or has had similar problems), I would appreciate any advice...

Thank in advance...
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Chung Lau)
Subject: Re: SMARTDRV 4.0 weirdness
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:17:52 GMT

  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
tried all kinds of combinations to no avail...

*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Stephen Lau, Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Hawaii           
Internet: lauch@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu, Stephen_Lau@asylum.flex.com
From: jsh@alice.att.com (Juergen Schroeter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Stanford Graphics any good??
Summary: Stanford Graphics is sloooow; bugs
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:34:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

In article <4136@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>, 6500alh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Archie Holmes) writes:
> Hello.  I am contemplating buying either Graftool or the windows version
> Stanford Graphics.  Does anyone have anything +/- to say about these
> products?
> 
> Archie
> 6500alh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu

For those of you who are contemplating Stanford Graphics:

My first impression (under Win3.0a) is: loading it is sloooooow!  Really slow.
Takes forever (3 minutes or so) to load on my 386/25 with 8 Megs (about 6 free
before starting 'sg').  Also, the sample presentation files require their
slide-service driver (although it's optional in the install; I originally
did _not_ install it) and also require that you have the hp-laser driver
installed (I hadn't since I have a postscript printer).  "require" means
that on open, these sample files pop up a nag window "... driver missing"
several times.

Did not have time to use it for anything "real" yet (still using troff :-) )

Your milage may vary.  Will try it under Win3.1 next week.

Greetings,

Juergen Schroeter
jsh@alice.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn)
Subject: Re: Setting up a '286 clone for max perf.
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:39:01 GMT

In article <N!DL2&H@ais.org> impster@ais.org (Charles Budensiek) writes:
/>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

Contrary to what many people are probably going to say, you have a fairly
good computer for running Windows applications.  For a modest investmant
you can get really decent performance out of the system that you will be
happy with for several years yet.

These include:

1. Buy a disk compression program like Stacker.  It will double your
disk size for around $80.00.

2. BUY AT LEAST 2mb more ram.  You can buy a board with 2mb for <$200.00
and 4mb for <$300.00.

Therefore, for an investment of much less than $400.00 you will have a 
system that you will be satasfied with for a few more years and by that
time the cost of 486 and better machines will have dropped significantly
and you will be thankful that you didn't do something stupid like upgrade
to a 386sx motherboard.

--
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
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:13115 comp.os.os2.misc:12266
From: becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Games
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:52:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr17.145210.27623
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <57511@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>> Aye, there's the rub!  Marketing my friend, marketing.  What is really
>> interesting about the whole win/os2 debate is that no one has argued
>> that Windows 3.1 is TECHNICALLY better than OS/2, they would be crazy to
>> do so.
>
>The Solitare game from Windows is *much* *better* than the Solitare
>game with OS/2.
>
>The Minesweep game from Windows 3.1 is *much* *better* than any of the
>games that come with OS/2.
>
>IBM's got a stronger Reversi, possibly.
>
>(I've only got the pre-GA OS/2, so that's what this is based on, by the
>way.)
>
>							Tim Smith

Have you seen the new Win3.1 Reversi (that doesn't come with 3.1)? You
can get it from any place that has the Windows Driver Library
(Compuserve, or maybe some FTP sites) It's really neat, with 3D effects,
and markers that actually flip instead of just changing color. Seems to
play a little better too (not that I could regularly beat the old one
:-)

- Brian
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: Getting DOS to run in a window with Windows 3.0
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:29:55 GMT

In article <kumpc1INNlir@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> 
>I have found the same thing under 3.1.  I am not sure that a high-res
>graphics program that assumes it has full control of the entire screen's
>pixels can be logically mapped into a window.  This may be a logically
>undoable task.  I am equally interested in any solution.

Sorry to bring this up gang, but OS/2 virtualizes VGA and SVGA graphics
into windows on the desktop.  Win 3.0 doesn't.  I can't say for 3.1.

	-Phil
From: failsafe@cellar.org (Failsafe)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Review
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:10:17 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


linville@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (John W. Linville) writes:

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

	Could it possibly be that Windows 3.1 setup only upgrades mouse
driver version 8.10 to 8.20?? I know Microsoft wanted you to pay $25.00 to
upgrade your mouse driver to version 8.10 from earlier versions. Perhaps    
their install program knows this also!


Steve Roth
Philadelphia, PA.


------
failsafe@cellar.org (Failsafe)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 654-9184
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms