HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carter@cemvax.cem.msu.edu (Tom Carter) 
Subject: re: Rev. video in Word 2.0
Organization: Michigan State University, Chemistry Dept., E. Lansing, MI 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:18:29 GMT

In article <757@idanm.pfbs.philips.se> niwr@pfbs.philips.se (Niklas Wretman) writes:
>
>Hi,
>
>I have a questions from a friend if it's possible to select
>an area of a Word document (for example a sentence), to be
>displayed in reverse video (white text with black background).
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Regards
>
>Niklas Wretman (please mail niwr@pfbs.philips.se)
>
>
>--
>|---------------------------------------------------------|
>|   Niklas "Nicko" Wretman,  Digital Equipment BCFI AB    |
>|    phone: +46-8-759 4790, facsimile: +46-8-739 8676     |
>|   email: niwr@pfbs.philips.se or d87-nwr@nada.kth.se    |

Yes. put all the text you want reversed into a separate paragraph. Then:

	-select the paragraph.
	-choose Format Character (or double-click on an empty part of the 
		Ribbon) and select "white" under Color.
	-choose Format Border, and then the Shading button.
	-select "black" for the background color.

You may then want to change the width of the paragraph, either in Format 
Paragraph or by using the paragraph width controls in the ruler.
HTH

(Sorry, our email is down right now. Cam someone forward this reply to
niwr@pfbs.philips.se for me?)
===========================================================================
|        Tom Carter                    |     carter@cemvax.cem.msu.edu    |
|  Michigan State University           |     carter@msucem.bitnet         |
|    Chemistry Department              |                                  |
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: stangel@sparc8.cs.uiuc.edu (Mike Stangel)
Subject: Re: Paradise drivers for 3.1
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:00:32 GMT

In <1992Oct16.114433.90349@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> paulr@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>Would anyone know of an ftp site where I might find screen drivers for a
>paradise card for windows 3.1 ? Thanks in anticipation.

Yep...ftp.cica.indiana.edu.  I believe the directory is
/pub/pc/win3/drivers/video, but don't quote me on that.

Mike
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Date: Tuesday, 13 Oct 1992 09:16:12 EDT
From: <SASTPH@vm.sas.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!

In article <1992Oct12.185104.1@vax1.umkc.edu>, edowdy@vax1.umkc.edu says:
>        I just read an article about Microsoft. Apparently microsoft
>has written in "secret codes" to the dos. Essentially these codes guarantee
>that software packages that are not microsoft's will run slower and less
>effeciently than microsoft's because they do not have access to these codes!
>There is apparently much evidence from many companies that overwhelmingly
>proves this is the case.
>
(More details omitted.)
>
>Can anybody verify this through other sources?
>

I'd be very interested in reading the original article.  Can you post just
exactly where you read this?
From: z_rasmusseam@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: Adlib or Sound Blaster - Which one?
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:03:50 CST
Distribution: na
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

Sound Blaster Pro 2.0 definately!  It does voices 1000% better than the adlib.
Take it from a guy whose had both...  That adlib was hot, and the gold is good.
But it can't touch the SBP2.  Not even a contest.  It was well worth it IMO.
Also, the only driver I've seen for the adlib (for windows) has one slight
problem.  The computer stops everything else its doing to play the sounds.
Mind you that this was only in windows.  On games the adlib is almost as good,
except where it comes to speach and digitized sounds.  Hope this helps you
decide ;)
    
     -----=====*****=====*****======*****=====*****=====-----
     | Adam Murrell Rasmussen                               |
     |   -- Lpc, C, Pascal, COBOL, Programmer               |
     |      LINC Technician, Steen Library Computing.       |
     |      Lotus Specialist.                               |
     |      Freelance Computer Consultant/Troubleshooter    |
     | E-Mail: z_rasmusseam@ccsvax.sfasu.edu                |
     |                qclaw@brick.pvv.unit.no               |
     | Standard disclaimer.                                 |
     -----=====*****=====*****======*****=====*****=====-----    

%SYSTEM-W-TMNYFNGR, too many fingers on keyboard ;P

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Stephen Rodgers)
Subject: Re: Mixing portrait & landscape in WfW2.0?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:20:43 GMT

In article <#bxzf#m@rpi.edu> kudla@acm.rpi.edu (Robert Kudla) writes:
>3. WordArt was a start, but supports only 19 rather odd-looking fonts
>that I've never installed on my system.  I can't figure out how to get
>it to use TT fonts.

	You can't.  Wordart only uses the built in fonts that seem to have been lifted from PD type-1's.  The fonts are all locked into a 385k file in the windows\system\msapps\wordart directory.  

>- Or, I could go and spend $70 on Bitstream MakeUp, which supposedly
>  supports all kinds of nifty text functions and exports .WMF's.
>  Another draw program would probably manage to at least rotate the text
>  90 degrees, but since EB has MakeUp for 70 bucks, it wouldn't be *too*
>  painful. 
>

	Just say _no_ to Bitstream MakeUp.  It's the worst piece of software I've ever had the displeasure to be suckered into buying.  You're much better off with almost _anything_ else.  Include Adobe Type align.  It's awful.  If you really want it, I'll sell you my copy.  I pulled it off the machine two weeks after purchase.

--------------------------rsrodger@wam.umd.edu----------------I-want-.QWK!!--
Please god, just let me graduate.. let me graduate... unnnghhnn.. ... 
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz... i'll do it in the morning.. the morning... ZZzzzz...
-------->Titania:  Pray thee gentle mortal, sing again.<---------------------


Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK! INTEL TOO!!!
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:49:28 GMT

In article <5381@sumax.seattleu.edu> khamer@sumax.seattleu.edu (Little Kenny Hamer) writes:
>
>Microsoft makes very good software.  They are very successful.  Why is it
>that so many people seem to think because they are successful they must be
>cheating?  Every programmer friend of mine who has read about the
>so-called "special cheat functions" has expressed a lot of doubt that
>using them would amount to much of an advantage.  Microsoft has lot of
>competition, and some of them are doing just fine.  We are hardly in
>danger of stagnation at the moment.

	I think it's PERFECTLY Clear what's going on:

	Microsoft and Intel have got together, and are conspiring to hold the
ENTIRE market to themselves.  

	A while back, I read in a  VERY REPUTABLE trade magazine that Intel
and Microsoft had, in fact, added a new instruction to the Intel chip, that
Only MS knows about.  It's called MSSWITCH and switches the processer into super-
duper multi-segmented hyper ultra-caching dualported superduperscalar ultra-
pipelining set associative mega awesome burst DOS Mode.  It is tailored 
exclusively to MS DOS, and only works for applications that have MS's secret
MSSWITCH Code.

	This explains why everything runs faster on my INTEL 486/50 than it
did on my *AMD* 386/40.

	An insider from Microsoft even told me that when confronted with the
awful truth, BILL GATES HIMSELF SAID:

	"Yeah, so what if we're doing something illegal?? I'm filthy rich,
and everybody who buys our stuff is stupid!  I see nothing wrong with it!"

	In Related news, Apple Computers of Cupertino, Calif. has filed a 
lawsuit against Exxon Inc for infringement of copyright.




	Seriously folks, There are often Undocumented calls because the
manufacturer of the OS can't guarantee that they're always going to be there,
nor that they will ALWAYS work.  Thus they don't document them so that 
software developers don't go screaming at them when the features disappears
or crashes their computer massively. 

	It it also worth pointing out that there are probably a LARGE Number
of calls that are undocumented that the Apps groups at MS don't know about
as well...

Toodlepip!
Marc 'em.


P.S.  Bill Gates is the Devil.  I saw in PC Rag.
-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         C program run.  Run  
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA          Program run! PLEASE!
    The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
              regarded as a criminal offense.  -- E. W. Dijkstra
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!
From: edowdy@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:51:04 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

MICROSOFT IS STAACKING THE DECK!!
 

	I just read an article about Microsoft. Apparently microsoft
has written in "secret codes" to the dos. Essentially these codes guarantee
that software packages that are not microsoft's will run slower and less
effeciently than microsoft's because they do not have access to these codes!
There is apparently much evidence from many companies that overwhelmingly
proves this is the case.

	Essentially these codes affect windows products as much and maybe even
more.  Products that do not have access to these codes would appear to run
slower and less effeciently than microsoft products, similarly, this makes
microsoft software (WORD, EXCELL etc...) will run more effeciently 
appearing to be "better" software than others say WORDPERFECT.

	This may explain some of the reasons why WordPerfect appears to run
much less effeciently (if in doubt see all the complaints in the various
newgroups) than Word 2.0.

Bill Gates reaction?: Apparently his response was similar to the following; 
"Yeah, we probably did that, but if we did, ...so what."

Can anybody verify this through other sources?
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:23:23 GMT

hodge@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.185104.1@vax1.umkc.edu>, edowdy@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>> MICROSOFT IS STAACKING THE DECK!!
>>  
>>  [ paragraphs of paranoid delusions deleted...]

>  I just love the fall, when the freshmen find the netnews...

    What's your point?  This was reported widely in the trade rags, and has
been documented quite thoroughly in a book on Windows secrets.  I think it's
crap that Microsoft gets away with shit like this, and you can be damned
sure the FTC is taking notes in a big way.  I'm going to laugh my head off
when Microsoft gets pinned to the wall and broken up like Bell was.  They
asked for it, and quotes like Gates' sure don't help.

--
   Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
      "Who can doubt that pleasure is the only goal of a reasoned life?"
                                                   -- Epicurus
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: bloeser@tron.kom.tuwien.ac.at (Friedrich Bloeser)
Subject: Re: Paradise drivers for 3.1
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:04:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.140032.10217@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> stangel@sparc8.cs.uiuc.edu (Mike Stangel) writes:
>In <1992Oct16.114433.90349@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> paulr@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>
>>Would anyone know of an ftp site where I might find screen drivers for a
>>paradise card for windows 3.1 ? Thanks in anticipation.
>
>Yep...ftp.cica.indiana.edu.  I believe the directory is
>/pub/pc/win3/drivers/video, but don't quote me on that.
>
>Mike

There are indeed paradise drivers at this site in the specified directory,
but they do not include a correct 640x480x256 driver.

File parad31.zip contains a corrupt 640x480x256 driver (other posters in
this group have previously also come to the same conclusion) and
file pvga1a31.exe contains just a 640x400x256 driver.

So if some kind soul has a running version of a 640x480x256 paradise driver
for Windows 3.1, could he/she please inform us where we could get hold of it?
(Anonymous ftp preferred, I do not have access to a BBS).

Thanks a lot!
-- 
Friedrich Bloeser                        Phone: (+43 1) 588 01 - 5811      
Communications Group                     Fax:   (+43 1) 587 42 11          
Computer Center                                                    
Technical University Vienna, Austria     e-mail: bloeser@edvz.tuwien.ac.at 
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From:  vic@vic.ipmce.su (victor roitberg)
Subject: win 3.1 under DesqView/x problem 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 12:09:58 GMT
Reply-To: vic@vic.ipmce.su
Organization: ipmce

Strange problem with DESQVIEW/X --------------
 1. When starting winx (Windows 3.1 in x-windows) I get the "Incorrect DOS
version" reply (I use MSDOS 5.0)!!??
 2. When starting Windows under DESQVIEW/X I get
               -    Can't run Windows in Standard mode
               -    Some protected mode applications already running
      kind of error
   Interestingly enough there are no problems when running Windows without
DESQVIEW/X.

Thanks for your replies

-- 
=============================================
-Victor Roitberg    vic@vic.ipmce.su
From: cap@mb5000.anes.upmc.edu (chris pilewski)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS STACKING THE DECK!
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:15:02 GMT
Organization: UPMC

In article <1992Oct12.185104.1@vax1.umkc.edu>, edowdy@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
|> MICROSOFT IS STAACKING THE DECK!!
|>  
|> 
|> 	I just read an article about Microsoft. Apparently microsoft
|> has written in "secret codes" to the dos. Essentially these codes guarantee
|> that software packages that are not microsoft's will run slower and less
|> effeciently than microsoft's because they do not have access to these codes!
|> There is apparently much evidence from many companies that overwhelmingly
|> proves this is the case.
|>

Mr. Olson, why don't you take this kind of nonsense (and the flame war that
you are trying to create) to one of the alt groups.  I suggest alt.person.silly or alt.moron. 

People use this group as a serious resource.

						- Back to the show...
						- CP
From: nauman@Pt.hq.af.mil (Stratton D Nauman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Interesting and unusual problem...
Summary: Wierd thing. Can you help?
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:44:08 GMT
Organization: Headquarters Air Force, The Pentagon Washington, DC

Ive had a very unusual problem crop up on my machine.

I purchased a new machine, in June, loaded MSWindows 3.1
at the same time, and have used it every day since then.
My problem:  3 days ago, 32 bit disk addressing all of a sudden
refuses to work.  Mind you, No problems at all when I turn it
off, but when its on, the Disk times out.  To the best of my
knowledge, nothing has changed, no new programs have been added
no new hardward, no new nothing.  I have run a surface scan quite
a few times, and although the first time I ran it, I came up with
a hardware data error, that hasnt happened again.

The disk seems to run just peachy keen under DOS.

Wierd.  Comments?

Dave.

Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: skok@itwds1.energietechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Holger Skok)
Subject: Re: ARGHH!-WFW2.0 Sucks big time!
Keywords: Crashes problems wfw
Organization: Inst. f. Thermodynamik u. Waermetechnik (ITW), U. of Stuttgart, FRG
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:17:17 GMT

In article <mcdonald.368@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.154722.6579@alw.nih.gov> arm@helix.nih.gov (Andrew Mitz) writes:
[... some stuff above and in the following deleted]
>
>>This is what the Insert File means.  Sorry its not a c %include.
>
>That is in fact a serious design flaw. 
I second that!
>
>But still it is clunky. Can you say too big for a floppy backup?
You can say that again!
>
>> (We will leave the TeX people
>>out of this discussion.)
>
>No you won't. Sorry, we can't be left out. W4W is different from TeX,
>and easier to use in many ways. But not in all ways. Its flaws are
>more severe .. TeX, for example, has no bugs. IF you find one, the author
>will actually pay you money. The output of TeX is clearly superior,
>especially in equations. 
Hear, hear!
I've decided to delete W4W from my disk after completion of the text I'm
writing currently and switch to LaTeX for doing serious work. True, it
is like writing code with several recompilations needed before the
desired output is reached (if at all in case your ideas about how the
text should look are very specific and not covered by the usual styles) 
but if you're used to the commands available in the LaTeX package 
(and I am), that is not too high a price to pay for the much better 
looking output. All in all, I think that working like that won't even 
be slower. 

HSK
-- 
Sie singen das alte Entsagungslied, das Eiapopeia vom Himmel,
womit man beruhigt, wenn es greint, das Volk, den grossen Luemmel.
Ein neues Lied, ein besseres Lied, oh Freunde, will ich Euch dichten,
Wir wollen hier auf Erden schon das Himmelreich errichten.    ... H. Heine
From: bxhv03@castle.ed.ac.uk (Mr John Ewart)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: PC speaker driver
Date: 7 Oct 92 08:37:04 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <8804320.1.718393581@clement.info.umoncton.ca> 8804320@clement.info.umoncton.ca (JONATHAN ROBICHAUD) writes:

>	Does anyone know any Anonymous FTP sites where I could find the
>drivers for the PC Speaker (for Windows 3.1)?
>

	Does anyone know of any PC speaker drivers that work with AST
micros - specifically, and AST bravo 486 with windows 3.1 ?

John
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: mbk@netcom.com (Miles Kehoe)
Subject: Re: mscdex says 'incorrect version of DOS'?!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:02:26 GMT

jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:

>rkl@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kevin.laux) writes:

<about the problem that mscdex is unhappy with DOS 5>

I've got a pretty recent version of mscdex, but it still wants
to run on older versions of DOS. That's why they give you SETVER.

Miles
From: weiss@ada.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: LPT1.OS2 ?? Want more ports!
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:13:34 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles

In article <1992Oct6.172750.21298@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> yefchak@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (George Yefchak) writes:
>What's the story on the "extra" filename-style printer
>ports, like "LPT1.OS2"?

The story is twofold.  First of all, Windows 3.0 and 3.1 have the ability to
use the BIOS routines to handle printing.  The way they do that is to fool DOS
into thinking that you are trying to print to LPT1, while fooling Windows into
thinking that you are trying to print to a file.  DOS ignores the ".OS2", and
Windows pays attention to it.

  I have my existing LPT1, LPT2,
>and LPT3 ports redirected to network printers via
>LanManager, but I'd like a regular parallel connection
>to a QuietJet on my desk.  At the moment, I have to
>break the link to one of the network printers, then
>assign the local printer to the old port, print the
>file, and then re-swap the port assignments.  Is there
>a better way?

Actually, there is, and this is the second fold to the story.  Windows 3.0
would allow for only one printer to be hooked up to any given port.  Win3.1
allows for as many as you'd like on a given port.  However, since you are
trying to change the physical location that the data goes, simply hooking up
the QuietJet and assigning it to, say, LPT2 while maintaining the redirection
of LPT2 to the LAN will result in the QJ never getting the signal.  You could
probably use LPT1.OS2 for your QJ without problems under Win3.0 (it's called
LPT1.DOS under Win3.1, but it does exactly the same thing).
>Thanks
>
>***********************************************************************
>* George Yefchak                          Hewlett-Packard Laboratories*
>* Internet: yefchak@hpl-spin.hpl.hp.com   P.O.Box 10350               *
>* CompuServe: 73607,1625                  Palo Alto, CA 94303-0867    *
>*                                         415-857-4793                *
>***********************************************************************


-- 
\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
-  Michael  weiss@seas.ucla.edu   |  School of Engineering & Applied Science  -
-   Weiss   izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu  |   University of California, Los Angeles   -
/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: C7 simply will not run.
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:14:16 GMT
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada



I installed C7 yesterday, and everything seemed to be fine -- Until I tried
to use it.

When I typed cl under windows, I got run-time error R6914 -- It was complaining
that it couldn't find something.386. 

Looking under qh, told me to put the following lines in my system.ini:

device=*vmcpd
device=c:\dev\c7\bin\vpfd.386

which, like a good robot, I did.  Then, when I tried to reload windows,
it barfed and said that I needed to have wina20.386 in my root dir all of a 
sudden.

I hadn't had this file in my root dir for ages, so I copied it off a friend,
put it there, and typed win.

It just barfed, stopped loading, and threw me back to DOS.

Any ideas what to do so I can get this bloody expensive and BIG compiler
to work...?

Toodlepip!
Marc 'em.
-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         C program run.  Run  
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA          Program run! PLEASE!
    The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
              regarded as a criminal offense.  -- E. W. Dijkstra
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
From: david@datamark.co.nz (David Rowland)
Subject: Re: Logining into windows
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:20:47 GMT
Organization: Datamark International Ltd.

In article <1992Oct14.105457.1@tesla.njit.edu> kpm8447@tesla.njit.edu writes:
>Is there any software to allow users to login to windows.  IE:have
>their own account and set up icons and groups accordingly?
>I only need this for a single pc.  It's just that my whole family
>uses it and I don't need them to be able to get into all of my design
>programs and files.
>
I Think that all you need to do is create a different copy of the
win.ini and system.ini files and the group files for each person and,
by the use of a menu or something, just copy their files to the live
files before loading windows.

e.g.  in the windows directory, make a sub called users which has a
sub for each user.

     WINDOWS
         +-SYSTEM
         +-TEMP
         +-USERS
              +-MUM
              +-DAD
              +-BRO
              +-SIS
         +-etc....

within the users directory, place the win.ini, system.ini and the
*.grp files.  If DAD runs windows from a menu, copy
\WINDOWS\USERS\DAD\*.* to WINDOWS
when DAD exits windows, copy the win.ini, system.ini and *.GRP back to
his own directory.

I cant garrentee this but it should work.
-- 
| David Rowland       | The British are using New Zealanders.  They must |
| Datamark Intl Ltd   | really mean business !                           |
| Wellington          |      -  General Rommel During Northern African   |
| NEW ZEALAND         |         Campaign WWII.                           |
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc