HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ehunt@bsc835bsc.edu (Eric Hunt)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 PC speaker MM driver?
Summary: Sndtool and PC speaker driver
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:41:35 GMT
Organization: Lost in Space

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]

Does anyone know if the PC speaker sound driver can change frequencies  
dynamically? I've got a .VOC from Terminator II that plays horribly slow
as a .WAV. When I manually adjust the playback rate with the control panel,
all my other .WAVs are too slow. grrrr.
-- 
Eric Hunt
Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: scott@unixland.natick.ma.us (Scott Evernden)
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 and SMARTDRV
Keywords: windows 3.1 smartdrv
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix & Think_Tank BBS
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:14:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.191000.01007572@locus.com> jta@locus.com (JT Anderson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.135832.1420@unixland.natick.ma.us> scott@unixland.natick.ma.us (Scott Evernden) writes:
>>
>>In my tests using both CORETEST and SI, my disk speed were identical
>>with and without SMARDRV 4.0.   Some disk cache...
>
>The new SMARTDRV does not cache at the INT 13 level, so CORETEST and similar
>disk benchmarks don't really test SMARTDRV.  In fact, if you use INT 25 to
>read a diskette, and SMARTDRV is enabled for that drive, it will have a
>very negative impact on performance.  On the other hand, for disk access
>using DOS file management calls, SMARTDRV is a very good disk cache.

I did some more tests, and you're right (you knew that!).  SMARTDRV 4.0
does not do low-level caching but does indeed cache at the filesystem
level.  This appears to be a design change from the previous version.

I ran the BYTE benchmarks and it showed file I/O proceeding at aro
7 megs/sec which convinces me that SMARTDRV really is doing something.
The low-level tests, OTOH, showed no improvement.

Thanks for setting me straight,

-scott
From: Andrew.Carpenter@f501.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Andrew Carpenter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: win 3.1 install warni
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:56:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: wyrm.703080151.0

BL>If you have an S3 card, you *must* select the video driver "VGA 3.0"  As far
BL>as I can tell this isn't documented anywhere, but in the setup.txt
BL>file you'll
BL>notice that Windows 3.1 is *not* compatible with any of the current crop of
BL>S3 drivers.  And, at least in my case, none of the other "standard"
BL>3.1 drivers work either.

This drove me crazy installing win 3.1! I didn't see the readme file you
refer to, but I tried the VGA 3.0 on a whim (I figured it had to be
there for a reason....) and most of my problems were solved.

You say that none of the current S3 drivers are compatible. I had
problems with the Orchid 3.1 drivers (date of 4/4/92) with their
Fahrenheit 1280, but have been running their 3.0 drivers (date 1/9/92)
with no apparent problems.  Do you know if the 3.0 drivers are
incompatible--perhaps by using them I am setting myself up for trouble
along down the road.

I also notice that a set of 3.1 drivers for the Diamond Stealth is
circulating about.  Do you know if these are incompatible too? If not,
perhaps I'll try them out on my Fahrenheit.

I spoke with Orchid, and they said that new 3.1 drivers will be released
around the end of the month.


 * Origin: SeaHunt BBS, PCBoard / HST-DS 1-415-431-0227  (8:914/501)
Xref: sparky comp.windows.ms:12051 comp.windows.misc:734
From: carter@cemvax.cem.msu.edu (Tom Carter)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.misc
Subject: I need the PCSOUND.DRV driver for Win 3.1, please!
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:44:23 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University, East Lansing Michigan


Can anyone send me the PCSOUND.DRV driver for WIN 3.1
which allows the multimedia sound effects to be used
without a sound card?  Someone posted that it was available
from MS on their BB, but I don't have access to a modem.

UUENCODED would be nice, or you can ftp it to me as "anonymous ftp"
at photon.cem.msu.edu.

BTW, check out the (DOS) program "MSD" which shipped with WIN 3.1!
Tells you lots about your system. 

TIA.

================================================================================
|   Tom Carter                          |         carter@cemvax.cem.msu.edu    |
|   Michigan State University           |         carter@msucem.bitnet         |
|   Chemistry Department                |                                      |
================================================================================
From: JWEST@r3vm.dsd.trw.com (Judson West)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Updated Driver for ATI Sound F/X Card and Win 3.1?
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:22:34 GMT
Organization: TRW Space & Defense

Has anyone contacted ATI about updated driver for their Sound F/X card? I
looked at their bulletin board and saw nothing.
 
Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Judson West                          Phone:     (310) 812-4394            |
| VM System Programmer                 Internet:  JWEST@r3vm.dsd.trw.com    |
| IBM Operating Systems                IBMMail:   IBMMAIL(USTRW001)         |
| TRW/Electronic Systems Group, One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
From: Brad Taplin <btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: 4SALE: Windows software, nice old system.
Summary: Ami Pro and 386 are mine now. Make offer.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:11:57 -0500

	Got Word for Windows last summer. Used page one of the
	user's reference to acquire Ami Pro for $100 last week.
	Now I have no use for all this Word for Windows stuff.
	All original disks and books, registered, legal & all.
	Will ship C.O.D. for a reasonable offer. Email me now.

	More Windows stuff with original disks and books.

		Afterdark 1.0		Sim City
		Stellar Seven		more...?

	Old system: may include WordPerfect 5.1 complete.
	plus...
	      Epson Equity 1+ with good 20meg hard drive,
	      2400 baud internal modem, Samsung VGA mono
	      monitor, Merit Mouse and pad, backup disks,
	      surge protector, cabling, keyboard, manuals.
	      Will include MUCH legally copyable software.

	And:  Epson LQ-510 24-pin printer with all basic
	      necessities plus much paper and the manual.

	Please make reasonable offers to me via email.
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:29:25 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). 
/>
/>Good reasons.... but I just can't see how you are surviving Windows
/>with only 2 mb.  I couldn't get a DOS and a Windows program going with
/>reasonable speed without upgrading from 2 to 3 mb.  The disk activity
/>really slowed things down.  And.. Win3.1 has not speeded (sped?)

It does slow things down but with 3.1 increased speed, the slowdown is
bearable.

/>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??)
/>

Its actually 4 mb additional.  ABout $200.00 for the simm and $400.00
for the 4-16 mb microchannel memory card at GSA pricing.  (Ahh, the
benefits of PS/2's - big bucks for IBM when upgrading. ;-} )

--
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: tbelmont@feds55.prime.com (Tom Belmonte x4858)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: MS Excel with Deskjet 500
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:30:53 GMT
Reply-To: tbelmont@feds55.prime.com (Tom Belmonte x4858)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA


Hello,
	I am having a minor problem with some of the printing
capabilities of MS Excel charts on my HP Deskjet 500 printer.
Specifically, when I attach text to both "X" and "Y" axes, the
text is shown onscreen for the "X" axis only, and when I print
the chart, everything prints, including whatever text/title
has been assigned to the "Y" axis.  However, the text that is
printed for the "Y" axis is very faint.  I've tried this on
another PC (it uses an HP Laserjet printer), and everything seems
fine ... you see all of the text onscreen and everything is printed
as shown.  So, if anybody has any ideas, I'm open for suggestions.
Thanks for any help.

				-- Tom Belmonte
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: donnel@helix.nih.gov (Donald A. Lehn)
Subject: Re: Why I'm sticking with Windows
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:26:56 GMT

In article <17513.29ed5c75@ecs.umass.edu> horan@ecs.umass.edu writes:
/>
/>Windows 3.1 I have heard (correct (not flame) me if I'm wrong) takes 10-15meg.
/>OS/2 takes 15-25, but you can delete...
/>- Dos       3 meg.
/>- Windows  12 meg.
/>- ATM       ? 
/>- other stuff depending on you applications.
/>
/>So I don't see why you would need an extra 80 meg drive.

You are correct about the hard disk needs, but some of us in the real
world have more on our computers than operating systems.  I can't delete
20 mb of data files just for OS/2.  I've already deleted many of the
seldom used Windows applets, wallpaper, etc.. so that DOS + Windows
takes less than 10 mb.

--
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
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: Ayman Kayssi
Subject: Re: Getting stuff from wuarchive.wustl.edu
Reply-To: ayman@eecs.umich.edu
Organization: ACAL, EECS, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:33:03 GMT

wuarchive can be mounted using NFS. The win3 directory can be accessed by
mounting wuarchive.wustl.edu:/archive/mirrors2
So you could say 
unix% mkdir ~/archive
unix% mount wuarchive.wustl.edu:/archive/mirrors2 ~/archive

to mount the disk, and then
unix% cd ~/archive/win3

and you can access all the files as if they were on your machine!

To access the MSDOS_UPLOADS directory, mount wuarchive.wustl.edu:/archive
and then go to pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS

--
Ayman I. Kayssi                               |    ayman@eecs.umich.edu
Advanced Computer Architecture Laboratory     |   ayman@engin.umich.edu
EECS Department                               +------------------------
The University of Michigan                    |          (313) 764-8033
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: eri316@tijc02.uucp (Ed Ingraham         )
Subject: Re: WIN 3.1 / Com 4 problem
Organization: Siemens Industrial Automation, Johnson City TN
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 13:16:19 GMT

From article <92104.012223MTF108@psuvm.psu.edu>, by MTF108@psuvm.psu.edu:
>     I'm having problems getting Com4 to work with windows.  I have two modems
      ....
I've just gotten Win 3.1 and a Complete PC Modem Plus running over the weekend
and here are a few notes:

System configuration is 386-20, 8Mb RAM, 110Mb disk, COM1, COM2, modem on COM4.
MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1 installed per manuals.

1. I had to use DEBUG to move the BIOS COM3 assignment to COM4 per the
   Windows Resource Kit hints. My BIOS found the modem at the COM4 address
   and assigned it to the empty COM3 slot in the BIOS data area. Win 3.1
   didn't like this until I changed the BIOS data area assignment (now in
   my AUTOEXEC.BAT file).

2. PROCOMM V2.4.2 works fine inside a DOS window on COM4. It won't work
   outside Windows at all on COM4.

3. The Alien Computing FAXIT SCHeduler works fine inside a DOS window on
   COM4. It won't work outside Windows at all on COM4.

4. Installation of Alien Computing FAXIT replaces the Windows 3.1 comm
   driver with an incompatible FAXCOM.DRV driver. This driver really
   screws all COM1, COM2, and COM4 access under Windows. Axe it and put
   the Windows 3.1 COMM.DRV back in SYSTEM.INI.

I'll check on software upgrades with The Complete PC People in a month or
so after the Windows 3.1 release activity slows down. They ought to be
providing updated software and installation notes soon.

By the way, I am quite pleased with Windows 3.1. Much faster screen updates
for my Excel spreadsheets and much faster printing from WFW 2.0 to my
Postscript printer.


Ed Ingraham, WX4S
Siemens Industrial Automation, Inc.        (615)461-2608 voice
3000 Bill Garland Road                     (615)461-2174 fax
P. O. Box 1255                             eri316%tijc02@uunet.uu.net
Johnson City, Tennessee 37605-1255
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore)
Subject: Re: Windows NT - is it a Unix "remix"?
Keywords: NT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 01:49:35 GMT

In <eagle.703037400@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:

>becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
>>NT has alot more cool stuff on it than either of them. For instance, you can
>>"own" a whole suite of resources, from files, to printers, etc, and assign  
>>permissions to not only the 3 groups in UNIX (Owner, Group, and Everyone), but
>>to individual users, or hierarchies of users, or other groups of users, all  
>>from within the new "Windows" revamped interface. That's something a user
>>can't do in UNIX. 

>Sure you can.  All you need is AFS.  We use Andrew File System here at
>NC State, and AFS allows me to give privs (read, write, look, delete,
>administrate, insert, and one other; not sure what the "k" is for)

AFS isn't part of standard UNIX as far as I know.  Its also a pain to have to
go between AFS and NFS and remeber which commands belong to which filesys.
Many programs that were written for AFS won't work for NFS and vice versa.
-- 
   ________________________________________________________________________
  /                                  /                                    /
 /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
/__________________________________/____________________________________/
From: baran04@wharton.upenn.edu (Dave Baran)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Bugs 3.1 aka win3.1
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:16:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr7.161217.823@desire.wright.edu>, rocker@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
> 	Is anyone else finding 3.1 to be VERY buggy?

You are not alone.  I've been using Win 3.0 since it came out, and never
got an Unexpected Application Error unless I was doing something
REALLY agressive -- even then, I've only had two in the entire time
that I've used Windows.

Last night (Microsoft delivered Win 3.1 one day late), I had
two UAEs that completely killed off WFW & EXCEL.  

Is 3.1 another case of "We will ship no product before its time ---
and that's right now because we promised it?"

-- Dave Baran
baran04@wilma.wharton.upenn.edu
From: iam@stiatl.salestech.com (Ian Mercado)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Win 3.1 and 32K colors
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:42:27 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies, Inc.

andyross@infopls.chi.il.us (Andrew Rossmann) writes:

>  Does Windows 3.1 Program Manager work better with 32K colors? I have an
>ATI Wonder XL, and when I use the 32K color mode, PM seems to try and find
>the monochrome icons instead of the 16 color ones. At least I *THINK* it's
>PM's fault and not Windows??
>  The driver returns 32768 as the colors, which some poorly written
>programs (that treat it as an integer) think is -1.

There is a program floating around in FTP land which will solve this problem.
It's called ICONFIX.  I don't know exactly what it does, but it makes some
changes to the executable files so that the icons come up correctly in
32K mode.  I tried it, and it worked fine.

However, 32K mode was a tad bit too slow to me, so I switched back to 256.
Besides, I couldn't find a single application which supported it except
for the Colors option on the control panel.

Ian

-- 
--------   ----   ----   --    |   Ian Mercado: iam@salestech.com             |
   --     -    -  -----  --    |                emory!slammer!stiatl!iam      |
   --    -------- --  -----    |                                              |
-------- --    -- --   ----    |            "I'd rather be flying."           |
From: tanida@forseti.css.gov (Tom Tanida)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 Bugs - Threat or Menace?
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:53:13 GMT
Reply-To: tanida@esosun.css.gov (Tom Tanida)
In-reply-to: stevey@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Yegge)

In article <1992Apr9.173838.6748@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, stevey@cs (Stephen Yegge) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.214033.26879@ms.uky.edu> jkvanm00@nx29.mik.uky.edu (jonathan van meter) writes:
>>
>>	I haven't tried eob 1 or 2 under windows 3.1 but I have successfully  
>>run Ultima Underworld with ZERO problems.  It's alittle slow but then again  
>>it's kinda slow in plan dos too.  The dos window in 3.1 is FAR better than the 
>>windows 3.0 window.
>>
>>Jonathan
>
>Are you running it in a window?  I can't seem to get VGA graphics to work
>under 3.1 in a DOS window.  I tried it with, hmm...EOB II, I think.  I 
>didn't try it with Ultima Underworld since I've heard the double-buffering
>between UW's cacher and Smartdrv.exe can screw up your save files.
>
>I get the "can't run this baby except in full-screen" message that I used
>to get in 3.0, and it suspends until I hit alt+enter.  I'm running at
>1024x768x256 on an Orchid Prodesigner IIs.  Can I get VGA graphics to work
>in DOS windows at this screen resolution?  Help, anybody?
>
>Steve Yegge
>stevey@cs.washington.edu

Windows 3.1 is capable, but you need full Win 3.1 video drivers.
There are two things to consider:

The driver itself (the *.drv file)
The grabber (the *.3gr or *.gr3 file)

You can find the references to these in your SYSTEM.INI.

A true blue, Windows 3.1 grabber file is necessary to get mouse support
and VGA graphics in a window.  As far as I can tell, even the most
recent Win 3.1 drivers from Tseng don't support this (yet).  If you
try the Win 3.1 provide 800x600x16 color driver, for example, you can
run VGA graphics in a window.

I ran SimAnt in a window, with mouse support using this.  The colors
were lousy (because the 640x480x16 colors didn't map directly to the
16 Win colors) and the program was almost too slow not to be usable,
although I did play for a little while, until the color annoyed me too
much.

Tseng needs to get the full Win 3.1 drivers going.  For now they've
made their drivers fully Win 3.1 compatible, with mouse support, but
they don't take advantage of all Win 3.1 capabilities.

-Tom
tanida@esosun.css.gov
From: rob@rjck.UUCP (Robert J.C. Kyanko)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Win3.1 not letting me create permanent swapfile -> partition type?
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:59:22 GMT
Organization: RJK Enterprises, Orlando, FL

Windows 3.1 is not letting me create a permanent swapfile.  The message is
"The partitioning scheme used on your hard disk prevents the creation of a
permanent swap file.  You can create a temporary swap file."  I'm running
MS-DOS 5.0 and have two partitions (no third party stuff.)  My first partition
is DOS and the second is UNIX; the table is as follows:


Partition  Status	 Type	 Volume Label	Mbytes	System	Usage
C:1			 A		PRI-DOS	  Rob's_Disk	  275	FAT16	  72%
  2					Non-DOS					  334			  87%


Total disk space is 383 Mbytes (1 Mbyte = 1048576 bytes)


Note: the usage %, & total disk space is off because my drive has 1632
cylinders and the bios ignores > 1024.


Any ideas?

-----------
I am not responsible for anything I do or say -- I'm just an opinion.
             Robert J.C. Kyanko (rob@rjck.UUCP)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Sound blaster driver problem
From: gilf@vms.huji.ac.il (GIL FREUND)
Date: 11 Apr 1992 14:51 IDT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    Lines: 8

When I try and install the SounBlaster 1.5, I get an Error Message that the
driver is not windows 3.1 compatible, allthough the files are from the
original windows 3.1 diskettes. When I try installing the 1.0 drivers,
I am told to use the 1.5 drivers (%&#^@)!
I now use the AdLib driver, but the sound is not as good as it should be.
Any advice?

Gil
From: trljim@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (James Sonnenmeier)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Differences between Norton's Desktop version 1.0 and version 2.0?
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr11.144754.1@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com>, bielski@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com (Walt Bielski) writes...
>In article <1992Apr11.003407.11148@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, axa12@po.CWRU.Edu (Ashok Aiyar) writes:
>> 
>> I currently use NDW 1.0 as my shell.  Could someone who has used NDW 1.0,
>> and now uses NDW 2.0 tell me more about the enhancements in the latter?
>> 
>> Additionally, does anyone know whether Symantec is offering a cheaper
>> upgrade to registered users of version 1.0?
> 
> 
>I called Symantec yesterday about this. I was told that the NDW 2.0 upgrade is
>$49 plus $8 s&h. They are going to send me slick sheets and a demo disc. The
>person I spoke to quoted some things from a "what's different about 2.0" sheet;
>full 3.1 compatibility (does this mean 1.0 isn't compatible :-)), better
>network awareness (whatever that means), a limited version of the Norton
>AntiVirus, more (19, I think) file viewer filters, and some other things that I
>don't remember now. One thing that they had planned to include but did not was
>a version of the backup program that handled tape drives :-(. All the Symantec
>rep would say to me was that there was a card in the box explaining that this
>was not present in the current version, but she did not know if this meant that
>they would ship it free to customers when it was availble. Hope this helps.
> 
>Walt Bielski
> 
>These are my opinions, not Honeywell's.


There was a file on CI$ (CompuServe) 's NORTUTIL forum that described the 
changes.  It was in lib 12 in the forum but I don't have it in front of me
sorry
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 1992 12:47:42 -0400 
From: Carl B Jabido <cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: 3.1 PC Speaker

Okay, I've got the driver, but when does Windows actually use the
sounds?  I get exclamation, question boxes all the time, but none play
the sounds I configured.  One program, WinDock, which was designed for
3.1 (really well designed, I'm gonna register as soon as I scrape up the
dough), does use the sounds.  Does this mean that the program has to be
designed for 3.1?  If so, then why don't the sounds do anything in the
3.1 applets?
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms