HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scalawag@milton.u.washington.edu (Keith Frederick)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,bit.listserv.win3-l
Subject: HELP: Lost my MT Fonts for WfW 2.0 !
Summary: Installed Windows 3.1 and re-installed Wf4W & lost fonts
Keywords: HELP Word for Windows Windows 3.1 MT Fonts
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:14:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr7.061431.13117
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Okay, today I received Windows 3.1 (ya!). Before I installed it
though I thought I would start things over with a "clean slate." Thus,
I erased my Windows and Word for Windows directories and then installed
Windows and then Word for Windows.
 
All went well, except now that when I got to the Equation Editor in
Word, it tells me that it cannot find the MT Extra and MT Fences fonts.
This causes the Equation Editor  to print something totally different
than what it should (i.e. the equation editor is no longer useful). I
have tried to re-define which fonts the Equation Editor uses but it
continues to complain about not having the MT Extra and MT Fences fonts.
 
Anyone have a clue as to what the program is? ANOTHER THING, I use to have
a PCLFONTS directory (which I believe was created when I originally
installed WfW 2.0), that directory is no longer with me...is that the
problem? Is so,  what is the cure?
 
Any help would be appreciated.
 
BTW, outside of this problem, Windows  3.1 is pretty *neat*. The TrueType
fonts are really nice (I got the additional Fonts too), the file manager
is different (better?), and the clock has some added features. All in all,
a pretty decent .1 upgrade. If this Equation Editor mishap is fixed I will
consider the money and time well spent.

 ________________________________________________________________________
|                                  |                                     |
| Keith R. Frederick               | Happiness is our moral purpose.     |
| (206)285-1576                    | If you see Dr. Fu Manchu, Kill Him! | 
| scalawag@milton.u.washington.edu | Reason is our only absolute.        |
| I'm not a number, I'm a free man!|-------------------------------------|
| CIS: 73760,3521  UWID: 8722277   | :: 5th Year Senior / Honors Econ :: |
|__________________________________|_____________________________________|
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: DRDOS 6.0 and WIN 3.1
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 09:21:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

> > 	I use DR-DOS 6.0 quite sucessfully myself, and find it to be much
> > more DOS compatable than MS-DOS 5.0.  
> > 
> 
> Perhaps you should define "DOS compatable."  Most of us define it
> as compatable with MS-DOS. Thus, MS-DOS is 100% DOS compatable.

MS-DOS 5.0 is not 100% compatible with MS-DOS 3.x.  I think that it what
the first poster was saying.  The differences are not just that MS-DOS
5.0 has new features -- there are, for example, data structures (disk
parameter blocks come to mind) where fields that are present in both
versions have been moved around, so things that worked with MS-DOS 3.x
break if they used these fields.

If you take as the standard of DOS compatibility MS-DOS 3.3, then in
some areas DR-DOS is more DOS compatible than MS-DOS 5.0 is.

							Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)
Subject: Diamond Speedstar Drivers for 3.1
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:36:44 GMT

I understand there are new drivers available for Windows 3.1 available 
for Diamond Speedstar owners.  They were to be available on the Diamond 
BBS yesterday (Monday the 6th), anybody had a look yet?  If they are 
there would some nice person like to take it on their shoulders to put 
them up on cica or wuarchive?  I'm sure there are many people who would 
appreciate it (not least, of course, me).

Any info appreciated,

Paul

pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)
Western Business School  --  London, Ontario
From: 6500alh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Archie Holmes)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Stanford Graphics any good??
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:14:11 GMT
Distribution: usa

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
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
From: prs@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Phillip R. Scarr)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:55:49 GMT

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.

Try playing in 256 color mode, it is fantastic.  Much much better than
the Windows solitare.  It resizes the cards to fit the window, Windows
doesn't.

>
>The Minesweep game from Windows 3.1 is *much* *better* than any of the
>games that come with OS/2.

Oh, right.  Much better than the OS/2 chess program which is built from
gnuchess.  Yeah.  Uh huh.  If you really like it, you can run it under
OS/2 right on the desktop.  It's called seamless windows support ( <-
grinning sarcasm)

>
>IBM's got a stronger Reversi, possibly.

Yep.

>
>(I've only got the pre-GA OS/2, so that's what this is based on, by the
>way.)
>
>							Tim Smith

	-Phil
From: gs359650@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Short)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Sabon font needed!
Summary: sabon font
Keywords: sabon, font, ATM
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:30:08 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

Does anybody know of a copy of sabon font that I can FTP?  It would be
preferable if the font were in ATM format, but a TrueType font would be
aceptable.  

Any help would be greatly apperciated.

Galen Short
gs359650@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Organization: Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 06:17:47 GMT

In article <92Apr11.191248edt.144354@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> jinli@dgp.toronto.edu (Jin Li) writes:
>
>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.

Ah, but that's where OS/2 followed the leads of Mac and Unix world, to
follow an object oriented windowing system. I think it's smart to pull
away from Windows since the other platforms have already shown the power
and useability of object oriented windows. FOr example, you can just
drag obejcts onto object and get the expect things to be done. Drag a
color on a window and the window changes to that color.Drag a file onto
the printer and it gets printed. This is more natural to humans than
Windows menu system. For example, put a drill on a piece of wood and you
expect it to put a hol in the wood. And since everything are objects and
they are all independent, you can drag the most used icons into the
desktop as opposed to having to go through multi-levels everytime you
want to run somehting. And OS/2 has this shadow feature where the
dragged out icon is still related to the original so that when you
chnage the shadow, the original changes too. Or you can just drag a copy
out. You are not limited within the boundaris of the upper window. Try
and drag an application ut of the Windows Application in Win 31 for
example. And I think IBM was smart to keep the Windows application to
run the same way as Windows (using the same keys and so forth). So that
Windows users won't cry "you've changed everything on us!" like what
happened when WordPerfect was ported to Windows or MS word...etc. I'm
familiar with which button does what under Word for Windows and I'd
rather keep it this way, even working under OS/2. I won't call this
inconsistency. I call it keeping things familiar for those who are used
to the way their DOS program used to work, or the way their Windwows
program used to work.

Thomas.

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.os.os2.misc
From: pundsack@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Mark Pundsack)
Subject: Re: Tastes gross/more fattening (was Is Windoze an OS?, and about OS/2
Keywords: (hex encoded ASCII) 3A 2D 29
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.102130.6975@midway.uchicago.edu> chi9@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>_
>
>	I have seen an awful lot of argument on here (somewhat more on the
>windows newsgroup) about whether or not Windows is an operating system, but
>both seem to have gotten nowhere.  Well, folks, I think it is going to take
>someone outside your experiential domains to resolve this issue, so I as a
>Macintosh user hereby nominate myself to the task.
>
>	In order to resolve whether or not Windows is an operating system, we
>are going to have to look at some other things whose extent of being operating
>systems can be determined by non-subjective methods.  Logically, one would
>pick the other things such that they will have some relation to Windows, in
>order to make the comparisons more meaningful.  Therefore, I will pick DOS and
>OS/2.

<Way cool stuff deleted>

>Now, since what is an 0.05 addition to OS/2 2.0, which is a whole
>operating system, is an 0.0333333333333 addition to Windows 3.0, we must (in
>order to determine the operating system content of Windows 3.0) divide 0.05 by
>0.0333333333333, which gives us the astounding answer that Windows 3.0 is 1.5
>of an operating system!
>
>	So there you have it, folks:  that's the way the world is.
>
>-- 
>|   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  chi9@midway.uchicago.edu

Very Tres cool.
Best stuff I've seen in this group in a looooong while on the subject.

However, I believe that his reasoning is flawed in the following way:
Since OS/2 2.0 is 1 complete operating system which includes BOTH Windows
AND Dos 5.0, we can deduce an upper bound for Windows by subtracting the
DOS part (.5) from the OS/2 whole (1) to get the Windows part (.5).  
So, In NO way can Windows be considered more than 1/2 of an operating system.  
Of course there is NO lower bound for how little of an operating system 
Windows is! :)

Just my $.02 (Canadian)

Mark Pundsack
-- 
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\/~~~~~Interests~~~~~~\
| Mark Pundsack:  pundsack@vlsi.waterloo.edu                 Man-Machine     |
| Disclaimer:  Come on, you didn't believe me did you?    AI,NN,NLP,robotics |
| P.S. Anyone looking for a co-op student?                   Pen-computing   |
From: hscohen@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Harvey S. Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: ATI VGAWONDER XL for WIN 3.1
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:20:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ

In article <1992Apr6.220253.14453@ncar.ucar.edu> murf@spike.comet.ucar.edu (John Murphy) writes:
>I finally recieved Windows 3.1, however, the ATI VGA Wonder XL card
>falls into the category of needing updated drivers.  I have been trying
>to get them through the ATI BBS but me along with thousnads of others are 
>trying to get through to a single line BBS.
ATI puts updated drivers on the Microsoft BBS (206-637-9009 or 936-6735)
as well as its own. The MS BBS is easier to get into, and the 6735
number is supposed to do 9600 baud (although I haven't tried that yet).
-- 
	Harvey S. Cohen / att!honet6!hsc || hsc@honet6.ATT.COM
	AT&T Bell Labs / HO 3B532 / 908 949 0173
	Crawfords Corner Rd. / Holmdel, NJ  07733 / U.S.A.
From: magid@ocf.berkeley.edu (Paul Magid)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Smartdrv problems
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:49:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rtmv8INNgj6
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <53838@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt3449b@prism.gatech.EDU (PETERS,MICHAEL W) writes:
>The problem that occurs is that with smartdrv installed, my machine blanks
>the screen when Corel Draw begins to print.  The only way to get the screen
>back is to CNTRL-ALT-DELETE and return to windows (YES I am running 3.1).

I have the exact same problem.  Except it appears when I am running a 4dos
window.  My solution is the same.  In addition, my fat gets trashed.  
ie: cross linked files and lost clusters.

>of moving distortions.  The machine never locks up though.  Without SMARTDRV
>the problem appears to never occur.

My solution is to go back to PC-Cache.

>ANY suggestions???

I am at a lost myself.

>I am currently not shadowing video and/or system rom.
>Also I have a PLANE JANE VGA card w/256k.

Might it be because I have a Seagate 1239A sector translating 200meg drive.


Paul
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: moore@iastate.edu (Brian J Moore)
Subject: Re: Why go to 3.1 if 2.0 works
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:01:17 GMT

In <2377@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico de Vries.) writes:

>In <44908@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> sexonbd@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Benjamin David Sexson (Ben)) writes:

>>He has a good question.  Which is better Windows 3.1 and DOS 5.0
>>or OS/2 2.0.  OS/2 has many advantages from what I know, but Windows
>>has the Apps behind it.  My question is when will someone make an OS

>Which apps? OS/2 does run all existing apps.

How many are 32-bit?

>>					Ben Sexson


>Nico de Vries
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>USENET: nevries@cc.ruu.nl                 FIDO      : 2:281/708.1  (very new) 
>VOICE : +31-3404-24931 (+31-30-316931)    FAX       : +31-30-312033 
>BBS   : +31-30-341401 (Nico De_vries)     COMPUSERVE: (coming)
>MAIL  : Hortensialaan 45, 3702VE, Zeist, The Netherlands 

>IMPORT StdDisclaimer, MyPersonalOpinion;          - O   Place reserved for
>Complaints about my spelling to DEV/NUL please.    |    funny joke. Sugestions 
>I work for BITECH, I don't SPEAK for BITECH.      \_/   apreciated.
-- 
   ________________________________________________________________________
  /                                  /                                    /
 /  Brian J. Moore                  /                  moore@iastate.edu /
/__________________________________/____________________________________/
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong)
Subject: Re: Boo Hiss MicroSoft
Keywords: Marketing Scam
Organization: Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:00:43 GMT

Say. I thought Microsoft made a BIG DEAL about having shipped millions
of copies weeks ahead but told FedEx/dealers to hold it so that they
will be sitt'n there and be able to be released exactly on THE day
they said they'd release it. To make a big intro, a BIG release right
on Monday. Oh well, I guess it's just another Microsoft lie again.

So let me get this straight though. With OS/2, I can get OS/2 upgrade
from Win 3.0 at about the same price as Win 3.1 upgrade, and if I
don't like it, I can return it for money back and go ahead and get 
Win 3.1? The IBM's OS/2 money back guarantee. Is this true? And of
course as everyone has already said, OS/2 is a full operating system,
does Windows like (Mac/Unix)(object oriented)(the right way), do
true multitasking, ...etc... a better windows than Windows and DOS?
Yet compatible with OS/2, DOS and Windows. Hhmm...
Does this sounds like an advertisement? :)
Do I work for IBM? I wish!! :)
From: pr@umiacs.umd.edu (Jesus Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: WIndows FAQ
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:48:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies



Could someone please send me a copy of the Windows FAQ List and a list
of known bugs found so far with Windows 3.1?

				Jesus M. Rodriguez
				pr@umiacs.umd.edu
From: ktaylor@umiacs.umd.edu (Kenneth Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Truetype and WP4W
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:25:43 GMT
Distribution: comp.windows.ms
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Is there any way to get word perfect for windows to recognize true type
fonts running under win 3.1?

Thanks in advance
Ken taylor
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: more bugs in 3.1
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:27:56 GMT

mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:

> More bugs:

> 1) a bad one: the clock appears to only run once, no multiple copies,
>    and, far worse, you can't make it the active window by clicking
>    just anywhere on it - you have to use the "move bar" area.
>    Whoever at microsoft that did this, it was dumb.

Several posters have observed that you can use the Windows 3.0 clock
if you need multiple instances; another possibility is the demo disk
which was sent out a few weeks ago advertising the Multiscope for Windows
debugger.  It has an app called "weird clock" with off-center hands.  It's
a modified version of the standard Windows clock.

Joe Morris
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: Mike_Quigley@mindlink.bc.ca (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: VOC2WAV.ZIP
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:25:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: mindlink.11348
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Which directory is this file located in at cica.cica. Is it also at wuarchive
as well?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're going to reply in E-mail, please don't quote my whole message back to me -- it costs me money!!! (so does this extra line)
Mike Quigley, Vancouver, B.C., Canada             Mike_Quigley@mindlink.bc.ca
From: plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:01:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Driver bug
Organization: HP Singapore IC Design Ctr
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms

/ mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) / 11:49 pm  Apr 14, 1992 / writes:

$ 
$ >If one uses the distributed 800x600x16 color
$ >super vga driver and goes to a higher mode of one's Super Vga card
$ >(OK, of **my** ORchid Pro II) in full screen mode, the screen is   correctly
$                                                                   ^^
$                                                                   in
$ >restored when returning to a Window.
$ >
$ >Doug McDonald
$ ----------
$
If you go by my definition of Super VGA (ie. 800x600x256 color), on my
ATI VGA Wonder, it is not just the screen didn't get restored correctly.
Actually, I don't mind that very much because I have my own way of 
refreshing the corrupted DOS graphics screen.

But what I really do mind is that anything I do (type a key, move the
mouse) after flipping back from Windows to the DOS box will cause Win 3.1
to complain that the application has "violated system integrity" and kill
the DOS box.

These 800x600x256 color applications worked fine in a DOS box under
Win 3.0a. An example would be VPIC.

May be because the new standard SuperVGA driver doesn't have a virtual
display driver (ie. VDDVGA.386  or was it  VGAVDD.386??). So, when is
ATI going to release a proper set of Windows 3.1 driver for the VGA
Wonder? Not the XL, just Wonder 512K with BIOS version 4.0M.  Am I still
supported?  :(  or  :)


Regards,     ___o``\________________________________________________ ___ __ _ _
Peter Lim.   V````\  @ @ . .. ... .- -> 76 MIPS at under US$20K !!   --- -- - -
                  /.------------------------------------------------ === == = =
             >--_//      . .. ... .- -> 57 MIPS at under US$12K !!
                `'       . If you guess SUN, IBM or DEC, you guess wrong !

E-mail:  plim@hpsgwk.sgp.hp.com   Snail-mail:  Hewlett Packard Singapore,
Tel:     (065)-279-2289                        (ICDS, ICS)
Telnet:        520-2289                        1150 Depot Road,
                                               Singapore   0410.

#include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>

Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: huot@cray.com (Tom Huot)
Subject: Re: ET4000 (800x600x256) not loading properly ?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:22:05 CDT

In article <5308@pdxgate.UUCP> mwizard@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Craig R. Nelson) writes:
>Hi all.
>
>	Well, I got the ET4000 drivers (after everyone was nice to point
>me in the direction of where they reside) but now I have a small problem.
>The reason I wanted the drivers was to run 800x600x256.  All the video
>modes (including 800x600x256 (Large Fonts)) run OK. I, being a picky person,
>would like the one mode that doesn't load right.  Small font-256 color
>just initializes the video screen, then throws me back to the DOS prompt.
>Anoyone out there run into a similar problem ?  1024x768x256 is nice but it's
>just to damn small :)
>
I was having the same problems as you, only with the 1024x768 small
font driver. I just re-expanded all of my drivers and now they all 
work ok. I think there might also be a problem with the grabber files
which might cause this. I also expanded all of those. I downloaded my
ET4000 drivers directly from Microsoft. For some reason or other,
you need to expand the files directly into the system directory. I was
unable to get setup to do it right. Everything is working fine now.


-- 
*****************************************************************************
* Tom Huot				       email address: huot@cray.com *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
From: jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: NoS/2 shipping yet?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:23:57 GMT

I realized after I posted that this might be confusing.  I apologize
if anybody started to unnecessarily worry:

jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu (John H. Kim) writes:

>>(though 32 bit support is available under windows 3.0 and 3.1 ..
>>more so in the later)

>Really?  Then why is it that people who use OS/2 2.0 have to worry
>about an 80386 hardware bug that shows up only in 32-bit protected
>mode, and people who use Windows don't?

The particular hardware bug is only in certain very early
versions of the 80386 chip.  Basically, if you have the bad
chip and a coprocessor, you can't use the coprocessor while
in 32-bit protected mode.  If you have a bad chip, most
manufacturers will upgrade your chip for you for free.
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu | think of something very clever 
uunet!jarthur!jokim         | to use as a disclaimer)
From: twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Why I hate [insert here] (this newsgroup)
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:33:38 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada

In article <+v8twk_@rpi.edu> floydb@rpi.edu  writes:
>sarcasm=on
>
>Reffering back to a previous posting, I wish there was a weenie
>factor of only 5%-10% instead of the 30%-50% persistently
>posting inflammatory/emotive articles.
> 
>.... [bunch of other stuff about weenies deleted]....

Define weenie! :)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms